These twelve posts run you through the writing of an IR academic paper. You can think of it as an IR Research Methods course. The series of articles run through the planning, development, and completion of a guided research paper in the field of in international relations (or international studies or diplomatic studies).

I’ll use the term International Relations (IR), because I’m old and set in my ways and hang on the idea that I’m an IR academic and so everything I do is IR. It’s self-centered and definitely not academic. So when I say “IR”, I’m really covering the broad gamut of disciplines that involves more than one country, so I’d probably be better using the term International Studies (IS). In the end, what you call it less important than what actually do.

I’m giving you the ins and outs, down to earth, reality of academic research in IR. I’m taking you through the writing of an IR academic paper in a step-by-step process. Hopefully, it will help some budding academic out there somewhere.

Rather than studying research methods in isolation, you’ll learn research design by applying each stage of the process to your own project--so before you read more, start thinking about what you want to research!

Course introduction

• Learn research by doing research — Plan, develop, and complete a guided academic research paper in international relations.

• Choose a research pathway — Study the discipline, the individual, or the nation, while developing your own research question and analysing evidence.

• Follow the complete research process — Move from ethics, literature, theory, and research questions through research design, methods, data collection, analysis, and the final paper.

You can choose one of three guided research pathways focusing on either (a) the discipline, (b) the individual, or (c) the nation. Each has a common structure but allows you to develop your own research questions, collect and analyse evidence, and draw independent conclusions.

The course follows the research process from beginning to end. It begins with research ethics, academic practice, reading scholarly literature and preparing a literature review. You then cover the role of philosophy and theory, learn how to formulate research questions and hypotheses, and develop a research proposal.

The second half of the course covers research design and the collection and analysis of evidence. You’re introduced to exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory research; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches; sampling strategies; and methods of data collection including documentary research, observation, surveys, and interviews. The course finishes up with an introduction to quantitative and qualitative data analysis.

By the end of the course (or reading of the twelve pieces), you’ll have experienced the major stages of the research process and have completed an academic research paper that demonstrates the ability to formulate a researchable question, engage with relevant literature and theory, select appropriate methods, collect and analyse evidence, and present a clear and supported argument.

The guided academic paper

As noted, this research design course explores the basics of research through the planning, structuring, researching and writing of a guided academic paper in the field of international relations. You can choose between a guided research plan focusing on (a) the discipline; (b) the individual; or (c) the nation.

The discipline

Research doesn’t always have to be about states, people, wars, diplomacy, or international events. Sometimes, we can turn the research process back on itself and study how academics actually do research. That’s what this type of academic paper is all about.

The discipline

• Focus on research itself — Examine how international relations has been studied and how the discipline has developed.

• Treat academic literature as data — Analyse published research according to topics, theories, methods, geographical focus, or other characteristics.

• Identify trends in the field — Examine patterns and changes over time to understand how IR research has developed.

Think about International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline. Thousands of articles are published every year, but what are scholars actually researching? What theories are they using? What methods do they prefer? Which countries and regions get the most attention—and which are largely ignored? Are there hidden agendas in writing about certain subjects? Is academia just a more highfalutin form of the mainstream media? Do these patterns change over time? These are all questions we can answer by treating published academic research as our data.

An example of this type of paper is Maliniak, Oakes, Peterson, and Tierney’s article, “International Relations in the US Academy” (International Studies Quarterly, 55-2, 2011). It’s a great read. They examined articles published in twelve leading IR journals, alongside surveys of American IR scholars. They classified the research according to things such as theory, methodology, and epistemology. This showed trends in the discipline, including growing theoretical diversity, the increased use of quantitative methods, and the continued importance of positivist research.

Choose this pathway, and you’ll do something similar—but on a much more manageable scale. You might take ten years of articles from one journal and ask what subjects researchers have studied, which theories they’ve used, what methods they’ve chosen, or which countries and regions they’ve focused on. Or you might choose a particular area of research—middle powers, diplomacy, international organizations, articles on Korea, conflict, foreign policy, or something else that interests you—and examine how that research has developed.

Remember tho, you’re not simply reading articles and talking about what they say. The articles themselves are your data. You gotta choose a way to sample the articles, classify them, look for patterns, work out what those patterns mean, and use them to say something about how research is actually being done. In other words, you’re gonna do research on research.

Take ten minutes now. Go to Google Scholar, search for a subject you’re interested in and look at how many articles there were over the last ten years. Can you see anything that stands out? Now look over the period 11 to 20 years ago. Is there any difference? This quick ten minute perusal of titles was your first step.

The individual

The next type of paper is about what people think. Why do some people see China as a threat while others don’t? Why do some strongly support an alliance with the United States while others are much less enthusiastic? Why do people disagree about immigration, foreign aid, nuclear weapons, international organizations, or military intervention? That’s what this type of paper is about.

The individual

• Focus on people — Examine what individuals think about international issues, countries, conflicts, or foreign policies.

• Treat individual responses as data — Use surveys to collect information about attitudes alongside characteristics such as age, education, political orientation, experience, or personality.

• Explain differences in attitudes — Identify patterns and relationships to understand why individuals hold different views about international affairs.

The basic idea is pretty simple: choose an international issue and find out what people think about it. Sounds easy - but it’s got to be both insightful and add to knowledge. You gotta go one step further and ask why people think differently. Their attitudes might be connected to their age, gender, education, political views, knowledge, personality, personal experiences, or perceptions of threat. Instead of states or academic articles being your main object of study, here you’re studying individuals—and what they tell you becomes your data.

A good example of this type of paper is Gravelle, Reifler, and Scotto’s article, “Personality Traits and Foreign Policy Attitudes: A Cross-National Exploratory Study” (Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 2020). They ask whether personality helps explain people’s foreign policy attitudes. Using surveys from six countries, they compare the Big Five personality traits with attitudes towards international cooperation, isolationism, military power, and global justice. What they find is that personality does seem to be connected to how people think about foreign policy, and many of these patterns appear across different countries.

Choose this type, and you’ll do something similar—but again, on a much smaller scale. You’ll choose an international issue, decide whose attitudes you want to study, and normally use a survey to collect your data. You might, for example, survey university students about their attitudes towards China and then see whether those attitudes differ according to political views, knowledge of China, previous travel, personal contact, or perceptions of China as a security threat.

The important thing is that you’re not just asking people what they think and reporting the results. You wanna find patterns and then try to understand them. Who thinks differently? What explains the differences? By collecting information about both your respondents and their opinions, you can start exploring why people see the world in different ways.

Take ten minutes now and ask the people around you their attitudes on the latest foolish war in West Asia or do a simple internet search for “attitudes”, “polls”, “support” and Iran. Of course, research on “what people think” does not necessarily have to includes surveys. You could also search for images of the near simultaneous national events of the funeral and the festival: in July 2026 millions turned out in Tehran to mourn its slain leader while in Washington only tens of thousands turned out to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence. As a reflection of support for the state at war, these images highlight attitudes. This quick ten minute search was your first step.

The nation

Finally, you can study International Relations by looking at what countries actually say and do. How does a country see the outside world? How does it talk about other countries? What does it say its interests are—and does this change when circumstances change? That’s what this type of article is about.

The nation

• Focus on the state — Examine how a country understands, presents, or conducts its international relations.

• Treat foreign policy activity as data — Analyse speeches, government documents, diplomatic statements, images, websites, social media, or events.

• Identify patterns and change — Systematically examine the evidence to determine how a state’s foreign policy, relationships, or representations develop over time.

The basic idea is to choose a country and examine some part of its foreign policy using evidence that the country itself produces. That might mean speeches, government documents, diplomatic statements, press releases, websites, official images, social media, or records of particular events. You can then look for patterns in how the country talks about other countries, presents its interests, responds to international developments, or communicates its foreign policy.

In this type of paper, the nation is your object of study, while what it says and does provides your evidence. The aim is to use that evidence to understand how a country sees the international world and how it chooses to act within it.

A good example is my awesome article, “More than Old Friends? Narrative in Australia’s Relationship with Korea” (Australian Journal of Politics and History, 63-1, 2017). It examined how the Australian government presented its relationship with South Korea through official foreign policy communication. It identified three recurring stories concerning early Australian missionaries in Korea, Australia’s contribution to the Korean War, and Australia’s role in Korea’s economic development. It then used rhetorical analysis to examine how they appeared across different levels of official communication, including foreign policy white papers, ministerial speeches, parliamentary submissions, and government websites. The study showed how these sources can reveal the way nations shape their relationships with other states.

Choosing this guided paper, and you’ll do something similar—but on a much smaller scale. You’ll choose a country, decide what part of its international relations interests you, and then work out what evidence you can use to investigate it. You might look at ten years of presidential speeches to see how South Korea talks about China, compare government statements before and after an important international event, or examine how another country is portrayed in official images or social media.

The important thing is that you’re not just describing a country’s foreign policy. You’re looking at actual evidence, finding patterns and changes, and thinking about what they tell you. In other words, you’re using what a country says and does to better understand how it sees and deals with the international world.

Take ten minutes now to read the State of the Union address of the U.S. from the current year and from ten years ago. What has changed in sentiment of the two speeches? Does the change in sentiment justify looking further into a specific aspect? Could that change in sentiment be reflected in other state documents? This quick ten minute read of two speeches was your first step.

Success in academic research

By the end of this course, you’ll hopefully have a pretty good idea of how academic research actually works: how to develop a researchable question, work with literature and theory, choose your methods, collect and analyse evidence, and eventually turn all of that into an argument. These things matter, and you need to know how to do them. But they’re still just tools.

Knowing all the rules, though, doesn’t automatically mean you’ll produce interesting research. Academics produce an enormous amount of research--and there’s a lot of cr@p out there. There’s more journals, more articles, more reports, and more pressure to publish than ever before.

A lot of that research is perfectly competent. It follows the rules, uses the right methods, speaks the right academic language—and is quickly forgotten. Like who reads half of this boring sh!t?

If the only reason for doing a piece of research is that you’ve found a tiny “gap” nobody has filled yet, you might end up with something technically correct but not particularly interesting or important.

In my opinion, being a good researcher involves more than knowing the methods. You gotta produce something that people will actually read. You need creativity!

You need to be able to look at familiar problems in a different way, make connections that other people haven’t noticed, ask questions that haven’t been asked, and explain your ideas in a way that people actually want to read. Good research needs creative insight and good writing just as much as it needs methodological competence.

Lastly, research can be h@ll boring if you’re just going through the motions. Start the course not caring about the subject you’re researching, and by the end of the course, you’ll absolutely hate it! Research needs passion!

The best research usually starts with something you genuinely care about. Something that puzzles you, annoys you, surprises you, or simply makes you want to know more. Methods can be taught. Creativity can be encouraged. But passion is what keeps you going. From my experience, it’s also what makes the research more engaging for readers and audiences when you present.

Take ten minutes now to actually write down what you’re passionate about. There’s a real psychological and even physical process in moving information out of your head and either writing it down by hand or typing it out on a document. The idea that you’re passionate about something firms up and the neurons start firing and reaching new pathways out to the distant corners of your brain. Knowing what your passionate about is the first step towards completing an academic research paper.

Guided academic paper - starting a research diary

The aim of a research diary is to create a continuous record of the research process. It documents how the project develops from the initial idea through to the final analysis and writing. Researchers should record important decisions, changes in direction, problems encountered, methodological choices, observations, and reflections on what they are learning.

The diary therefore serves both as a record and a thinking tool. It helps researchers remember why decisions were made, reflect critically on their assumptions and possible biases, track the development of their ideas, and identify problems that may need to be addressed. By the end of the project, it provides a clear record of what was done, why it was done, and how the research developed.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

This second post in the series covers research management and ethics. It starts with a few basic pieces of advice on the practice of academic research--on research motivation; working with others; keeping a research diary; and managing sources and citations. It then looks at research ethics--including the rights of participants; the responsibilities of the researcher; the ethics of the research question itself; and the growing challenges raised by the use of AI in research. Finally, it applies these issues to the guided academic paper, and encourages you to begin thinking about possible ethical problems as you develop research ideas.

Academic research

As noted, academic research usually begins with personal interest and inspiration. Researchers are drawn to questions because they find them interesting, important, puzzling, or frustrating. Ideas can emerge from something encountered in a class, a book or article, a current event, a conversation, or previous research. Personal experience can also generate valuable research questions. Reflecting this... think now about what you want to research!

Academic research inspiration

• Start with personal interest — Good research often begins with something you find interesting, important, puzzling, or frustrating.

• Look for questions everywhere — Ideas can emerge from reading, teaching, current events, conversations, personal experience, or previous research.

• Follow your curiosity — Research takes time and persistence, so choose a question that you genuinely want to answer.

Personally, I take the “previous research” route--but with a twist. I like to go through really old papers on the same or similar subjects and see how people wrote about the topic in its earliest stages. Those old papers (anything before the 1970s) are a treat to read. They’re near conversational, easy to read, and in my opinion, much better written than much of the academic dribble of today. Looking back also gives you an idea of how the field has changed.

Research projects require considerable time and effort, so genuine curiosity and enthusiasm for a subject is important in sustaining a project from the initial idea through to completion.

Academic research is of course, also a professional activity so for most people, one of the main goals is to get published. Research that sits on your computer or disappears into a filing cabinet doesn’t do much to academic debate—trust me. I have hundreds of half-finished papers. Oh, it doesn’t do much for your career either ;)

This means you should start thinking about publication fairly early in the research process. Where could this research eventually go? Could it become a journal article, a book chapter, a conference paper, or some other kind of publication? Some people like to even format their paper in the same way as the journal they’re aiming for, just to get them in the mindset. So if there is a particular undergraduate or postgraduate journal you want to publish in, it may pay to look through the journal carefully, and even set your sights on it from an early stage.

Getting published

• Research is meant to be shared — Publication allows your ideas and findings to contribute to academic debate.

• Think about publication early — Consider the audience, journal, conference, or other outlet while developing the research.

• Make research work harder — One project can produce several outputs, such as a conference paper, journal article, and public-facing piece.

Now, you don’t need to have all of this worked out from the beginning, but it’s worth keeping in the back of your mind as the project develops.

Publication is what gets your research out into the academic world. It allows other researchers to read it, scrutinize it, challenge it, cite it, and build on it. At the same time, publications help build your academic reputation and are an important part of professional development and career progression. That’s simply part of the reality of being an academic.

As a practical principle, researchers should try to ensure that every research project produces several forms of output. A useful goal is to publish or communicate the research in at least three places or formats. The same project might produce a conference presentation, an academic journal article, and a shorter public-facing article or commentary.

A larger project might also contribute to a book chapter, policy report, dataset, or subsequent research project. This does not mean publishing the same article three times. Rather, the underlying research can be adapted for different audiences and purposes, allowing the work to have a wider academic and public impact.

Working with others

Much academic research is also conducted with other researchers. Co-authorship can be particularly valuable for junior academics. Working with an experienced researcher provides opportunities to learn how research projects are designed, how data are collected and analysed, how academic papers are structured, and how the publication and peer-review process works.

Joint research

• Combine skills and expertise — Co-authors can contribute different theoretical, methodological, regional, or technical strengths.

• Learn through collaboration — Junior researchers can gain experience in research design, writing, peer review, and publication.

• Manage collaboration carefully — Agree early on responsibilities, workload, authorship order, deadlines, and publication plans.

Collaborators can bring different theoretical, methodological, linguistic, or regional expertise to a project, while sharing the workload involved in collecting data and preparing a manuscript. Collaboration also helps junior researchers develop professional networks and can make ambitious projects possible that would be difficult to undertake alone.

Collaboration nevertheless has disadvantages. Junior researchers may perform a disproportionate amount of the work while receiving less recognition, and disagreements can arise over authorship order, intellectual ownership, workload, deadlines, or the direction of the research.

Working with established academics can also make it difficult for junior researchers to develop an independent research identity if most of their publications are co-authored. Expectations should therefore be discussed early: who will do what, who will be an author, how authorship order will be determined, and where the research will be published. Collaboration is an important part of academic life, but researchers also need projects that establish their own ideas, expertise, and scholarly identity.

It’s the same when working in groups in class. Every class group has that one free rider who does less work (that was probably me when at university). From teaching and observing student groups over a long time, I recognize that free riders are much less common than you’d believe. In fact, usually, it’s just a case of management. Find each person’s individual strengths and the group will work well. You gotta decide if you want to work together with others, or do the hard slog on your own.

In the end, your research should be organised so that another researcher—and your future self—can understand exactly what you did, why you did it, and where your evidence came from. This is where a research diary comes in handy.

Keeping a research diary

A research diary is a record of the research process. It documents what you have done, when you did it, and the decisions you made along the way. Entries might record literature searches, sources consulted, data collected, changes to the research question, problems encountered, discussions with a supervisor, or decisions about methods and analysis.

Keeping a research diary

• Record what you do — Keep track of research activities, sources, data collection, and progress.

• Record decisions and problems — Note changes to the research design, difficulties encountered, and why decisions were made.

• Record ideas and reflections — Capture emerging patterns, possible explanations, questions, and next steps.

The diary does not need to contain polished writing. Its purpose is to create a continuing record of how the research developed from the initial idea to the completed paper.

A research diary is particularly important because research rarely proceeds exactly according to plan. Questions change, sources prove difficult to find, methods need adjustment, categories are added or removed, and unexpected findings suggest new directions. Recording these developments helps you remember what changed and why.

For example, if you decide to exclude a particular category of articles from a dataset, the diary should record when that decision was made and the reason for it. The diary therefore provides an audit trail that allows you to reconstruct and explain the decisions that shaped the final research.

The diary is also a place for reflection. Researchers should record emerging ideas, possible explanations, patterns in the evidence, doubts about their approach, and questions that need further investigation. These observations may later become important parts of the analysis or help explain methodological choices in the final paper.

A simple research diary does not need to be complicated: each entry can record the date, activity, observations, decisions, problems, and next steps. The most important requirement is to update it regularly rather than attempting to reconstruct the research process at the end.

Managing sources and citations

Good research requires a systematic way of collecting and organising sources. From the beginning of a project, researchers should keep a complete record of every book, article, report, website, dataset, or other source they might use. Sources can be organised into folders or collections corresponding to different topics or parts of the research project. Developing this system at the beginning is much easier than trying to reconstruct sources when writing the final paper.

Managing sources and citations

• Record sources as you find them — Save complete reference details and always record page numbers while reading.

• Keep sources organised — Connect notes, quotations, and evidence to their original sources and clearly distinguish them from your own ideas.

• Use Zotero from the beginning — Store and organise sources, attach PDFs, take notes, insert citations, and automatically generate bibliographies.

Researchers should also record where information comes from while they are reading. Notes should always remain connected to the original source, and page numbers should be recorded for quotations, arguments, evidence, and other information that may later be cited.

Researchers must clearly distinguish between direct quotations, paraphrases of an author’s argument, and their own observations or ideas. Copying a passage into notes without recording its source or marking it as a quotation can easily lead to accidental plagiarism later. A useful rule is simple: whenever you record information that is not your own, record the source at the same time.

Zotero provides a simple way to manage this process. It allows researchers to collect bibliographic information directly from journal databases, library catalogues, and websites; attach and organise PDFs; add notes and tags; and arrange sources into collections for different projects or topics.

Zotero also integrates with word-processing software to insert citations and automatically generate bibliographies in the required citation style. However, Zotero is a research tool rather than a substitute for careful research practice. Researchers should check imported bibliographic information, correct errors, and ensure that page numbers and other citation details are accurate before submitting their work.

Personally, I write using Markdown, Zotero, and BibTeX. Markdown is a simple plain-text formatting system that allows you to structure your writing using basic symbols rather than menus or formatting tools. Zotero is used to collect and organise sources, while BibTeX stores the bibliographic information needed for citations and references. Together, they allow me to concentrate on writing while keeping formatting and referencing simple and largely separate from the text itself.

Research and society

Research ethics is always a reflection of society. What a society considers acceptable research depends on its wider ideas about individual rights, authority, scientific progress, and the responsibilities of researchers. Germany provides an important early example.

Research and society

• Ethics reflects society — ideas about acceptable research change with social values and expectations.

• Rules are not enough — Nazi medical experiments showed how ethical protections can collapse when wider social and political values change.

• Universal standards — the Nuremberg Code (1947) established principles intended to protect participants and restore trust in scientific research.

In 1900, the Prussian government issued one of the earliest formal directives governing medical experiments on human beings, requiring consent for non-therapeutic research. Germany introduced further regulations in 1931 that established unusually detailed protections for research participants. In this sense, Germany was a leader in research ethics. Yet this did not last.

Under Nazi rule, doctors and scientists conducted experiments on concentration-camp prisoners and other vulnerable populations without consent and often with devastating or fatal consequences. These practices demonstrated how scientific institutions could abandon existing ethical standards when the values of the wider society change. Research could be scientifically organised and supported by respected institutions while still violating fundamental principles of human dignity.

After the Second World War, restoring confidence in science therefore required principles that went beyond the standards of any particular institution or state.

The 1947 Nuremberg Code, developed following the trial of Nazi doctors, attempted to establish universal principles for research involving human beings. Most importantly, it placed voluntary consent at the centre of ethical research and made researchers responsible for protecting participants from unnecessary harm.

The history of research ethics therefore reminds us that ethics is more than compliance with rules. It is an attempt to establish standards that allow society to trust researchers and the knowledge they produce.

If you’re a young researcher, think back to your days at school. Remember COVID-19. The period was the perfect example of (a) why many people distrust science; and (b) why it’s important that governments build up greater trust in science. Think about it, what could’ve been an emergency, a pandemic that could’ve wiped out millions, and we had very little faith in out government and their research bodies, and their ability to tell the truth. There are some basic reasons why trust broke down:

• Pseudoscience

• Junk science

• Information overload

• Misinformation

• Disinformation

It’s interesting to note that modern research ethics were established in the late 1940s because it was believed that increasing faith in research and science would address concerns regarding a Western disadvantage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in Cold War scientific competition. Perhaps it’s time to try again?

Modern research ethics standard developed around three concerns: the rights of participants, the responsibilities of the researcher, and the ethics of the research problem.

1. Ethics and participants

Research involving people creates particular ethical responsibilities. Participants give researchers access to their time, experiences, opinions, and sometimes highly personal information.

Integrity

• Plagiarism

• Credit

• Conflicts of interest (including politics)

• Social responsibility

Researchers must therefore protect participants from harm and respect their autonomy throughout the research process. This involves several basic principles, including voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality.

Voluntary participation. Participation in research should always be voluntary. People should be free to decide whether to participate and should be able to withdraw without penalty. Researchers must therefore avoid pressure, coercion, or situations in which participants feel they have no real choice.

Informed consent. Participants should understand what they are agreeing to before taking part. Researchers should explain the purpose of the research, what participation involves, any possible risks, and how the information will be used. Consent is meaningful only when participants have enough information to make an informed decision.

Anonymity. Anonymity means that a participant cannot be identified from the research data. Wherever possible, researchers should avoid collecting identifying information or remove it from their records. Researchers should also consider whether participants could be indirectly identified through details such as their occupation, location, or personal experiences.

Confidentiality. Confidentiality means protecting information that could identify participants. Researchers may know who participated, but they must control who has access to that information and how it is stored and reported. This may involve secure data storage, restricting access to research files, and removing identifying details from publications.

There are a number of well-recognized ethical lapses and amongst these, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study is one of the most famous. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study began in Alabama in 1932. It was run by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) with the cooperation of the Tuskegee Institute and involved around 600 Black American men, most of whom were poor sharecroppers with little formal education and limited access to medical care.

About 400 had syphilis, while the remainder formed a control group. Researchers told participants that they had “bad blood,” a familiar local expression covering several illnesses, rather than clearly explaining their diagnosis or the purpose of the research. Many therefore believed they were receiving medical care rather than participating in a study of untreated syphilis. Even after penicillin became the standard treatment in the 1940s, effective treatment was withheld.

The study continued largely out of public view until Peter Buxtun, a Public Health Service employee, raised ethical concerns about it within the agency. After his objections failed to stop the study, he provided information to a journalist. In July 1972, Associated Press reporter Jean Heller broke the story nationally, revealing that the government had knowingly observed men with syphilis without providing them with appropriate treatment.

The resulting public outrage led to the study being terminated later that year and contributed to major reforms in the regulation and ethical review of research involving human participants.

Which principles were violated, and how? Participation was not genuinely voluntary because the men were misled about the nature of the study, and informed consent was impossible because they were not properly told their diagnosis or that researchers intended to observe untreated syphilis. Additionally, those who were illiterate and/or uneducated may have been unable to give consent.

Their anonymity was not protected because researchers knew and recorded their identities, while sensitive medical information was retained and shared. Most seriously, the researchers failed to protect participants from harm by withholding effective treatment even after penicillin became widely available.

Some people are more vulnerable in research because they may have less power, fewer choices, or a limited ability to understand or refuse participation. Researchers therefore have a particular responsibility to identify these groups and ensure that they are not exploited or placed at unnecessary risk. Which populations might be especially vulnerable in research?

As a researcher, you must think about whether such populations may be impacted by your research. The first step then, is to think about who is directly and indirectly impacted by your research.

2. Ethics and the researcher

Research ethics also concerns the behaviour and responsibilities of the researcher. Researchers are responsible for how research is conducted, how evidence is handled, and how findings are communicated. These responsibilities can be divided broadly into two areas: integrity in conducting research and ethical reporting of its results.

Reporting

• Accuracy

• Completeness

• Positive and negative results

• Openness and transparency

• Dissemination

Integrity requires researchers to conduct their work honestly and responsibly. This includes avoiding plagiarism, giving appropriate credit to the work and contributions of others, and recognising the wider social consequences of research. Researchers must also identify and disclose conflicts of interest, including financial, professional, personal, or political interests that could influence their research or create the appearance of bias.

Reporting requires researchers to present their research accurately and completely. They should not fabricate, falsify, exaggerate, or selectively report evidence, and negative or unexpected findings should be treated as seriously as positive results. Researchers should be open and transparent about their methods and evidence so that others can evaluate their conclusions. They also have a responsibility to disseminate their findings so that research contributes to academic knowledge and, where appropriate, the wider community.

Students and junior researchers sometimes assume that good research must produce a positive result—that the original proposition or hypothesis needs to be proven correct. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of research. A negative or unexpected result can contribute just as much to knowledge by showing that an assumed relationship does not exist or that an existing explanation needs reconsideration. Research is judged by the strength of its methods and its contribution to knowledge, not by whether its original expectations are confirmed.

3. Ethics and the research problem

Ethical questions begin with the choice of research problem itself. Researchers should consider why a particular question is worth studying, who might benefit from the research, and who might be harmed by it. A project can follow appropriate research procedures and still raise ethical concerns because of the question it asks or the assumptions on which it is based.

Researchers must also consider how the problem is framed. Research questions can reproduce stereotypes, stigmatise communities, or treat particular groups as problems to be explained. The language, categories, and comparisons used in research are therefore ethical choices as well as analytical ones. Researchers should think carefully about whose perspectives are included and whose may be overlooked.

At the same time, ethical concerns should not mean that difficult or controversial questions cannot be studied. Research often contributes most when it examines uncomfortable subjects or challenges accepted ideas. The responsibility of the researcher is to demonstrate that the question has scholarly value, consider its possible consequences, and design the research in a way that balances the pursuit of knowledge with responsibility to society.

Ensuring informed consent

Informed consent means more than simply asking a participant to sign a form. Participants must receive enough information to understand what the research is, what they will be asked to do, what risks are involved, and what will happen to their information. The information should be written in clear, accessible language and participants should have an opportunity to ask questions before agreeing.

An informed consent sheet should normally include:

• Research purpose - what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

• Researcher details - who is conducting the research and their institutional affiliation.

• What participation involves - interviews, surveys, experiments, recordings, time required, etc.

• Voluntary participation - a clear statement that participation is entirely voluntary.

• Right to withdraw - when and how participants can withdraw, including any limits once data are anonymised.

• Risks or discomfort - any reasonably foreseeable physical, psychological, social, professional, or other risks.

• Potential benefits - what participants or society might gain, without exaggerating likely benefits.

• Privacy and confidentiality - how identities and personal information will be protected.

• Data collection and storage - what data will be collected, where it will be stored, who can access it, and how long it will be retained.

• Use of data - how findings may be used in publications, presentations, teaching, or future research.

• Recording and quotations - whether audio/video will be recorded and whether participants may be quoted.

• Researcher contact details - how participants can ask questions about the study.

• Ethics contact or complaints procedure - who participants can contact independently if they have concerns.

• Statement of consent - confirmation that the participant has understood the information and freely agrees to participate.

The key principle is that consent must be informed, voluntary, and ongoing. A signed form documents consent, but it does not replace the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that participants actually understand what they have agreed to.

Think about the above informed consent list. Which points reflect the rights of participants, the responsibilities of the researcher, and the ethics of the research problem?

Research and AI

One of the largest emerging issues in research ethics is the use of artificial intelligence. AI can assist researchers with searching literature, analysing data, writing, translation, coding, and generating ideas, but it also raises fundamental questions about authorship, originality, accuracy, transparency, and responsibility. AI systems can produce convincing but false information, reproduce biases, and make it difficult to determine where the researcher’s own intellectual contribution begins and ends.

Research and AI

• AI is here to stay and is useful if you use it effectively.

• Follow ethical research guidelines and be transparent.

• At all costs, avoid AI-generated rehash.

The ethical challenge is therefore not simply whether researchers should use AI, but how it can be used while preserving the integrity, transparency, and accountability of research.

My own view is that AI is here to stay. It will not disappear, and universities should not simply shun or forbid it. Instead, students and researchers need to develop the skills to use AI effectively and responsibly. No professor or editor wants to receive a veritable Sunday-morning spew of rehashed AI-generated text; it wastes the reader’s time and contributes little to knowledge.

However, using AI to analyse materials, compare large numbers of documents, identify patterns, or assist with other time-consuming research tasks can make research considerably more efficient. When researchers clearly explain where, why, and how AI was used, such use can represent both good research practice and ethical research. So, all up, using AI cos you’re lazy is a problem, using it as a tool is okay.

The guided academic paper - ethics

As noted, this course provides for guided research focused on (a) the discipline, (b) the individual, or (c) the nation. Your first task is to use your research diary to record the broad topics or questions that you might like to research.

Begin with something that you are passionate about: a country, issue, debate, behaviour, or pattern that you would like to understand better. At this stage, the idea does not need to be a precise research question. Look for things that seem interesting, surprising, different, changing, or difficult to explain. Write several possibilities in your research diary and briefly explain what interests you about each one.

You might notice a trend in academic research, differences in how people think about an international issue, or something unusual in the way a government conducts its foreign policy. Record these observations in your diary. They provide the starting points from which a more focused research question can later be developed.

You should also record an initial assessment of the possible ethical issues associated with your ideas. Consider the rights of respondents: could participants be vulnerable, could answering questions cause discomfort or risk, and can their privacy and anonymity be protected?

Next, record any ethical issues relating to your responsibilities as a researcher. Could your political views, personal experiences, or expectations introduce bias? How will you ensure that evidence is collected, stored, and represented fairly?

Finally, consider the ethics of the research question itself. Record whether your proposed research could make unfair assumptions about a nationality, gender, political group, or community; reinforce stereotypes; or cause unnecessary harm to those being studied.

Your research diary should therefore contain both your initial research ideas and your first assessment of their ethical implications. These entries do not need to be final. Return to them as your research question develops and record how your thinking changes.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

This third post in the series looks at reading and writing academic literature

Academic writing allows considerable freedom in principle, but in modern academia, and particularly in International Relations, articles tend to follow a relatively narrow range of formats. This contrasts with disciplines where the form of scholarly communication can vary substantially according to method or subject.

Writing and reading literature

• IMRaD

• Writing an academic paper

• Literature reviews

• Academic literature

• Writing a literature review

• The guided academic paper

Historical research may develop an argument through narrative, philosophy through sustained conceptual reasoning, and some humanities disciplines through interpretive essays. IR has increasingly converged around the journal article as its principal form of scholarly communication. Articles generally introduce a problem, position it within existing literature, explain how it will be investigated, present evidence or analysis, and conclude by stating what has been learned.

Yup, it’s pretty f&@king boring. The terminology and order vary, but the underlying structure remains mind-numbingly consistent. The simplest way to understand this structure is through IMRaD.

The IMRaD structure

IMRaD - Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Developed primarily in the natural and medical sciences, IMRaD provides a basic model for organising research around a sequence of questions.

The IMRad Structure

• Introduction - defines the problem, significance, literature, and research question.

• Methods - explains how the research was conducted.

• Results - presents the main findings and evidence.

• Discussion - explains what the findings mean and why they matter.

IR articles do not always follow IMRaD rigidly. Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, case studies, and conclusions are often given separate sections--and sometimes they merge into one.

Nevertheless, IMRaD provides a useful starting point because it captures the basic logic underlying most academic research: What is the problem? How did you study it? What did you find? What does it mean?

Personally, I take a different route. My go to formula is a little different because I’m a frustrated wannabe novelist. This is my process.

The title

First, I can spend ages thinking about the title. In fact, some would quite rightly call it procrastinating. I procrastinate over the title, try out different formulas, think about catchy, controversial and challenging and provocative titles, and then go back to one of a few typical formats:

Subject statement: Question
Pyongyang’s musical culture: Are there similarities to Seoul?

Subject statement: Subject statement
Musical culture in Pyongyang and Seoul: Similarities between divided capitals.

Question: Subject statement
Are there similarities between Seoul and Pyongyang? Musical culture in divided capitals.

Catch phrase: Subject statement
Dueling banjos: Musical culture in divided capitals.

The title is increasingly important in modern academic research because articles are usually discovered through online databases and search engines rather than by browsing individual journals.

A good title should then do more than just sound interesting: it should clearly identify the subject of the research and include keywords that other researchers are likely to use when searching. Titles that are too clever, vague, or abstract may be fun but make good research difficult to find. In an environment shaped by database searches, citation indexes, and metadata, discoverability is part of academic communication.

I kinda really want to write an article like this baby with the great title:

Kieran Healy, “Fuck nuance”, Sociological Theory, 2017, 35(2), 118-127.

Though, I reckon it might be harder to get published in International Relations than in other fields.

The abstract

The abstract is the most widely read part of an academic article--largely because it’s the only part that is free to read in the modern f@#ked up world we inhabit. It allows readers to decide quickly whether the full paper is relevant to their research and is displayed and indexed in databases and search results.

The Abstract

• Summarises the paper

• Identifies research problem and states the question, method, findings

• Explains the contribution

• Includes searchable keywords

A good abstract should briefly identify the research problem, question, method, main findings, and contribution. Like the title, it should also contain important keywords so that the article can be easily discovered through academic searches.

Personally, I like to include a shortened form of the narrative that explains the research problem, then move on to the question, method, main findings, and contribution. In my opinion, it just makes it a tad more interesting.

Now, many guides will tell you to write the abstract last, cos how else are you going to know about the method, main findings, and contribution? Well, I write it first as it acts like a road map and inspiration at the same time. Inevitably, I have to adjust it, and even rewrite it again at the end (sometimes I forget). It’s up to you whether you follow this feckless old man’s advice.

The research statement

The research statement is the core of the introduction. It tells the reader what the research is about, why it matters, and what the study will investigate. Although these elements can appear in different orders, the clearest structure usually follows a natural progression from the problem, through the existing literature, to the research question.

The research statement

• Presentation of the problem - what needs explaining?

• Literature - what do we already know and where is “the gap”?

• Research question - what will the study answer?

The presentation of the problem establishes what needs to be explained or understood and why it is important. I often start this section with a narrative. This is simply a short story about an event, puzzle, or contradiction that brings the problem to life. It gives the reader something concrete to think about before getting into the academic detail. The trick is that the story has to go somewhere. By the end, the reader should already be wondering about the problem that the research is going to address.

The literature then shows what we already know about the problem, including existing explanations, debates, and gaps in knowledge. Essentially, what others have done--leading to why your research will be different. This provides the foundation for the research question, which identifies precisely what the study will investigate. The basic logic is therefore: there is a problem → this is what we know about it → this is what we need to find out.

The methods section

The methods section explains how the research will answer its research question. It takes the reader from the broad logic of the study to the practical decisions involved in collecting and analysing evidence.

This includes the research objectives, philosophical and methodological approach, key concepts and definitions, hypotheses or propositions, expected findings, data, sampling, collection, and analysis.

Most importantly, the methods section should explain and justify these choices. Read that again--EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY! The aim is to show the reader what was done, why it was done that way, and how those choices allow the research question to be answered.

Methods

1. Research objectives - what does the research seek to describe, explore, explain, or evaluate?

2. Philosophical approach - what assumptions about knowledge and evidence underpin the research?

3. Methodological approach - what overall approach will be used: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods?

4. Concepts and definitions - what are the key concepts, and how will they be understood or measured?

5. Hypothesis or proposition - what explanation, relationship, or claim will the research examine?

6. Expectations - what should we expect to observe if the hypothesis or proposition is correct?

7. Data and sources - what kinds of evidence are required to answer the research question?

8. Sampling and case selection - how will participants, cases, documents, events, or other observations be selected?

9. Data collection - how will the evidence actually be gathered?

10. Data analysis - how will the collected evidence be analysed and used to answer the research question?

Now this is a little bit of biased advice, but I reckon this is the part of the paper that gets attacked the most when submitting to a journal. There’s always a reviewer out there who is so @nal about the methods section that one word astray will leave the manuscript in the junk pile.

Submitting a paper with a poor methods section is like bringing a knife to a gunfight: you might have a brilliant argument, fascinating evidence, and important findings, but you have left yourself completely undefended.

Every choice needs to be clear, justified, and consistent. Why these cases? Why this data? Why this period? Why this method? Why should we believe that your evidence can actually answer your research question? You do not need to turn every paper into a philosophy-of-science dissertation, but you do need to show that you have thought carefully about what you are doing. A strong methods section closes off the obvious lines of attack before “Reviewer 2” gets anywhere near them.

For your info, “Reviewer 2” is the long-running academic crack at the anonymous peer reviewer who seems determined to find something wrong with your paper. Reviewer 1 might offer helpful suggestions; Reviewer 2 screws you over with questions on your assumptions, visceral dislikes of your methods, always demands their own work be added to the literature review, and wonders whether the paper should have been written at all. A good methods section is all about Reviewer 2.

Results and discussion

The Results section presents what the research found, while the Discussion explains what those findings mean.

In a quantitative paper, the distinction can be quite clear: the Results section presents statistical findings, tables, and figures, while the Discussion interprets those results in relation to the hypotheses, literature, and research question. Keeping them separate makes it easier for the reader to distinguish between the evidence produced by the research and the researcher’s interpretation of that evidence.

In much qualitative research, however, separating Results and Discussion can feel artificial. If a paper presents evidence from interviews, documents, speeches, or case studies, the reader often needs to know immediately why a particular piece of evidence matters. Presenting twenty pages of evidence and then discussing its meaning afterwards can also create considerable repetition. In these cases, a combined Results and Discussion section allows the researcher to present evidence, interpret it, relate it to the literature, and then move to the next finding.

There is therefore no single correct approach. Separate sections generally work well when the results can stand on their own, particularly in quantitative research. Combined sections often work better when evidence and interpretation are closely connected, particularly in qualitative research.

The important thing is to maintain the distinction intellectually: What did you find? What does it mean? How does it answer the research question? Even when Results and Discussion are combined on the page, the reader should always be able to tell the difference.

Results and discussion

• Results - what did you find?

• Discussion - what does it mean?

• Separate (quantitative) or combined (qualitative )

The conclusion

The conclusion brings the paper back to the research problem and explains what has been learned. It should briefly restate the research question, summarise the main findings, and give a clear answer to the question posed at the beginning of the paper. A conclusion should not simply repeat the Results and Discussion; it should draw the findings together and explain the overall argument that emerges from them.

A good conclusion should also consider the wider significance of the research. This normally includes the study’s contribution to the existing literature, its theoretical or practical implications, and the limitations of the research design or evidence. It can identify questions that remain unanswered or suggest directions for future research.

Most importantly, the reader should finish the conclusion knowing what the study found, why it matters, and what we know now that we did not know before.

Academics are pressed for time. In today’s academic world, you reckon they can sit by the fireplace in a smoking jacket, puff on a pipe, and peruse every word of an academic paper? It’s ironic given the nature of the work, but between lectures, committee meetings, funding applications, and worrying about whether they’ll have a job next semester, few have time to spend reading.

The end result? All academics will read the abstract, most will read the intro, some will read the methods section, some will read the rest of the paper, but all will read the conclusion. What’s important, is that the conclusion will be the last thing they’ll remember about your research before grading, accepting, or rejecting. The conclusion has gotta be good!

Conclusion

• Summarise findings and provide a clear answer

• Explain the contribution and discuss implications

• Acknowledge limitations and identify future research

The literature review

Research does not begin from nothing. Every research question sits within an existing body of ideas, arguments, evidence, and debate. The literature review establishes what is already known about the research problem and where the new study fits. It helps the researcher avoid simply repeating existing work, identifies important theories and explanations, and reveals disagreements, weaknesses, or questions that remain unresolved.

A literature review, however, is not simply a summary of everything that has been written. Its purpose is to organise and critically assess the literature in relation to the research problem. It should identify the major approaches and debates, show how they relate to one another, and establish what remains to be explained. A good literature review therefore leads somewhere: by its end, the reader should understand what we know, what we do not know, and why the present research is needed.

The role and location of the literature review varies according to the type of academic work. The basic purpose remains the same—establishing what is already known and positioning the research within that knowledge—but books, theses, and journal articles use literature differently.

A thesis or dissertation usually contains the most explicit literature review. It commonly appears as a separate chapter and may be substantial in length. Part of its purpose is demonstrative: the student must show examiners that they understand the field, know the major debates and authors, and can identify where their research contributes. The literature review therefore demonstrates mastery of the field as well as justifying the research. There are different ways of approaching this task.

• A systematic review uses an explicit and reproducible process to identify the relevant literature. The researcher defines the databases, keywords, time period, and criteria for including or excluding material, and then works systematically through the results. Its strength is coverage and transparency: the reader can see how the literature was selected and, in principle, repeat the search.

• A synthesis review is organised around ideas rather than the process of finding literature. Instead of discussing studies one after another, the researcher brings them together into themes, arguments, theories, or debates. The aim is to show how different parts of the literature relate to each other: where scholars agree, where they disagree, and what remains unexplained. In practice, a strong thesis literature review will often combine the two approaches: systematic in finding the literature, and synthetic in making sense of it.

An academic book may contain a dedicated literature review, but often does not. The author can assume greater familiarity on the part of the reader and does not need to demonstrate comprehensive mastery in the same way as a student. Instead, engagement with existing scholarship is often distributed across the introduction and individual chapters, appearing where it is relevant to the argument.

An academic journal article has much less space. A literature review may appear as a short separate section, but it is often incorporated into the introduction or theoretical framework. The objective is not to demonstrate knowledge of everything written on the subject. It is to establish the relevant debate, identify the gap or problem, and show quickly how the article contributes to it.

The academic paper literature review

• Limited space - keep the review focused and concise.

• Establish the debate - show what the relevant literature says.

• Identify the gap - explain what remains unresolved.

• Position the article - show how your research contributes.

What is academic literature?

This is not a stupid question! It’s the kind of question that seems like you should already know it so students keep their heads low and nod and smile as the lecturer fluffs along. So here’s the answer.

Academic literature is the body of research and scholarship produced to develop, test, debate, and communicate knowledge. Its defining feature is its scholarly purpose: ideally, the objective is to improve our understanding of a subject through evidence, argument, and methods that can be examined and challenged by other researchers. Not everything useful to academic research, however, is academic literature.

Formal academic literature is produced primarily for scholarly audiences and usually operates within established academic processes of review and criticism. It includes peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books and monographs, theses and dissertations, conference papers, reference works and scholarly reviews. Academic blogs and posters can also communicate scholarly research, although they generally carry less authority than peer-reviewed publications.

There is also a grey area between academic and non-academic literature. Think-tank reports, policy papers, working papers, and similar publications may be written by highly qualified researchers and can make important contributions to knowledge. However, their purpose may also be to influence policy, promote particular ideas, serve an institution, or shape public debate. They therefore need to be read with greater attention to who produced them, why they were produced, and how their claims were reviewed.

Finally, researchers use a great deal of material that is better understood as evidence rather than academic literature. Government reports, official statistics, corporate reports, speeches, policy documents, websites, and institutional publications can provide essential information for research. Their primary purpose, however, is generally not the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. Governments and companies produce material to fulfil administrative, political, commercial, or strategic objectives. These sources can be excellent evidence, but they should not automatically be treated as independent academic analysis.

Formal academic literature

• Journal articles

• Academic books and monographs

• Theses and dissertations

• Conference papers

• Scholarly reviews

• Reference works

Grey-area literature

• Think-tank reports

• Policy papers

• Working papers

• Research institute publications

• Academic blogs

• Policy briefs

Evidence or primary sources

• Government reports

• Official statistics

• Policy documents

• Speeches and statements

• Corporate reports

• Government and corporate websites

• Institutional records and documents

Sometimes the boundaries are difficult to draw. An academic might write an article for a newspaper, magazine, blog, or policy website using the same expertise they bring to their academic work. That does not automatically make it academic literature.

What matters is not simply who wrote it, but why it was written, how it was produced, and how it was reviewed. A newspaper article written by a professor is generally journalism or public commentary rather than academic literature because it is written for a different audience, serves a different purpose, and has not gone through normal scholarly review. The useful rule is: judge the publication, not just the author.

Writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is really about telling a story about the literature. You begin with a large collection of articles, books, arguments, and findings, but your job is to turn them into a coherent account of how scholars have understood a particular problem. Like any good story, it needs structure: where the debate began, the different explanations that emerged, where scholars agree or disagree, and what remains unresolved. The process below takes you from finding the literature to telling that story.

1. Define the scope - identify the research problem and decide what the review will cover. Set boundaries such as subject, time period, geographical area, and type of literature.

2. Develop search terms - identify the main keywords and concepts associated with the problem. Include synonyms and alternative terms that other researchers might use.

3. Search systematically - search academic databases, Google Scholar, library catalogues, and reference lists. Keep track of your searches and follow citations to locate important works.

4. Select, read, and record the literature - prioritise relevant and important sources, then systematically record their questions, arguments, methods, evidence, findings, and limitations.

5. Identify patterns - look across the literature for recurring arguments, explanations, theories, disagreements, and approaches. Begin thinking about how individual studies fit together.

6. Organise into themes - group the literature around themes, theories, explanations, methods, or debates rather than individual authors.

7. Compare and synthesise - explain where studies agree and disagree, why their conclusions differ, and what the literature collectively tells us about the problem.

8. Identify what is missing - find gaps, contradictions, unresolved debates, neglected cases, or weaknesses in existing explanations. Use these to establish the need for your research.

9. Write and revise - turn the review into a coherent argument that moves from what we know to what we do not know to what your research will address. Remove material that does not contribute to that story.

A useful test of a literature review is simply whether someone would want to keep reading it. Academic writing does not need to be dull. The best reviews hide much of the hard work of searching, sorting, and comparing behind clear and engaging prose. They move smoothly from one idea to the next, avoid endless lists of authors, and give the reader a sense of progress. If the literature review feels like a story rather than a bibliography, you are probably doing something right. If it makes the reader want to move onto the next chapter - it’s perfect.

The guided academic paper - literature

As noted, this course provides for guided research focused on (a) the discipline, (b) the individual, or (c) the nation. At this stage, you are still unlikely to have a final research question, but you probably have an area of interest. That means you can start reading. From this point, record your literature search and reading in your research diary.

Begin with a broad search using Google Scholar, the university library, or an academic database. Try several combinations of keywords related to your topic—and then try several more. Record the search terms you use in your research diary, particularly those that produce useful results.

For example, if you are interested in Korean attitudes towards China, you might search for “South Korea” “China” “public opinion”, “Korean attitudes China”, or “South Korean students China”. Do not worry about finding everything. The immediate objective is to find a small number of articles that appear closely related to your interest.

Next, choose three to five promising articles and read their abstracts and introductions. At this stage, you are trying to understand the shape of the research rather than master the entire literature. Ask simple questions: What are these researchers studying? What questions are they asking? What explanations are they considering? What evidence are they using?

Record each useful article in your research diary. Note its research question, argument, theory, method, evidence, and main findings, together with anything that might be useful for your own project. As you do this, you will begin to see common topics, concepts, methods, and debates.

Next, use these articles to find more literature. Look at their reference lists to identify important earlier studies, particularly works cited repeatedly by several authors. READ THAT AGAIN! This is called “following the bibliographic trail”. Then use Google Scholar or another database to see which later studies have cited those works. Record this trail in your diary, including which articles led you to other useful research.

Do not simply collect PDFs (this is what I often do, and it doesn’t end well). The purpose of reading is to begin mapping the field: what has already been studied, how it has been studied, and what questions remain. Use your research diary to build this map as you read.

After this initial reading, return to your original interest and write a short diary entry explaining how your thinking has changed. Perhaps you have discovered a disagreement in the literature, a group that has received little attention, a method that could be applied differently, or a question that existing studies have not answered.

Reading therefore comes before the final research question: you start with an interest, enter the literature, and allow what you find to help shape the question you eventually ask. Your research diary should provide a record of that process from your first searches to the development of your research question.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

This fourth post of twelve is focused on exploring the field. Now, it’s pretty big and diverse. I’ll just concentrate on three broad subjects that closest to me: International Studies, International Relations, and Diplomatic Studies. Each provides a different way of thinking about the international world and each has developed its own questions, literature, and approaches to research.

Understanding the differences between them helps us identify what we are studying, where our research fits, and which academic conversations we are contributing to. We’ll therefore begin by looking briefly at each field before considering how they overlap and interact.

International studies

International Studies is a broad, interdisciplinary field concerned with the world beyond national boundaries. It draws on politics, economics, history, sociology, law, development studies, culture, languages, and area studies. Rather than belonging to a single academic discipline, International Studies provides a space in which different disciplines can be used to understand international and global problems.

An ideal reading to understand the field is Pami Aalto, Vilho Harle, David Long, and Sami Moisio’s “Introduction: From International Relations to International Studies” in International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches (Palgrave, 2011, 3–30).

The authors explain the development of International Studies as a broader and more interdisciplinary approach to understanding international phenomena. They examine its relationship with International Relations and show how the field draws on different disciplines, approaches, and levels of analysis. The chapter therefore introduces students not only to what International Studies studies, but also to what distinguishes it from International Relations and why an interdisciplinary approach is useful.

International studies

• Broad and interdisciplinary

• Focuses on international and global problems

• Draws on politics, economics, history, law, sociology, culture, and area studies

• Examines globalisation, development, migration, inequality, identity, and regions

• Debates global vs national, universal vs cultural, Western vs non-Western

• Research often crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries

International relations

International Relations (IR) is a more clearly defined academic discipline concerned with international politics. Its traditional focus is on states and their interactions, although the field now encompasses international organisations, non-state actors, and transnational processes. Its major areas include war and security, foreign policy, international political economy, international organisations, and global governance.

An ideal paper to understand the field is Steve Smith’s “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” (British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2: 3, 2000, 374-402).

Smith examines how the discipline developed, its dominant approaches and assumptions, and the extent to which its intellectual agenda has been shaped by American scholarship. The article therefore introduces students to not only the subject matter but also to the debates on the discipline.

International relations

• Distinct discipline focused on international politics

• Traditionally centred on states and the international system

• Examines war, security, foreign policy, institutions, and political economy

• Major theories include realism, liberalism, and constructivism

• Debates power, order, cooperation, ideas, institutions, and agency

• Research investigates how international actors behave and interact

Diplomatic Studies

Diplomatic Studies focuses specifically on diplomacy. It examines the institutions, actors, processes, and practices through which international relationships are managed. Its subjects include diplomats and foreign ministries, embassies, representation, negotiation, communication, diplomatic protocol, and multilateral diplomacy. It is particularly interested in what diplomats actually do and how diplomatic institutions operate.

An ideal paper to understand the Diplomatic Studies field is “The Present and Future of Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies” (International Studies Review, 13, 2011, 709-728).

It was written by a number of the most prominent scholars and provides an overview of the field. It examines how the study of diplomacy has developed, its relationship with International Relations, and the growing interest in diplomatic institutions and practices. It is particularly useful for understanding why diplomacy can be studied as a subject in its own right rather than simply as one small part of foreign policy or IR.

Diplomatic studies

• Specialised study of diplomacy

• Focuses on institutions, actors, processes, and practices

• Examines diplomats, foreign ministries, embassies, and negotiations

• Studies representation, communication, protocol, and multilateral diplomacy

• Debates traditional vs new, state vs non-state, secrecy vs transparency

• Research asks how diplomacy actually works in practice

These three fields approach the international world from different starting points. International Studies provides the broad interdisciplinary setting, International Relations focuses on international politics, and Diplomatic Studies concentrates on the institutions and practices of diplomacy. Their boundaries frequently overlap, and research can quite easily sit across two or even all three.

There are many ways to become familiar with this intellectual landscape. The papers suggested here provide a starting point, while the introductory chapters of good textbooks can provide a broader overview. The more you read, the easier it becomes to see where your own interests fit. Research rarely begins with a perfect question. More often, it begins when something you encounter in the literature strikes you as interesting, puzzling, or unexplained.

You should also be prepared to position your own research within the field. The core subjects, debates, and areas of investigation outlined above are illustrative rather than exhaustive; each field is broad and continually changing. Use them as a starting point to identify where your paper fits, which debates or subjects it engages with, and what existing research it builds upon. The aim is to show where your research belongs and what academic conversation it is joining.

The guided academic paper - the academic field

A research topic does not exist on its own. It belongs to a broader field of study and usually connects to an existing subject, debate, theory, or body of research.

You need to know the broad field in which your research sits. Is it primarily International Studies, International Relations, or Diplomatic Studies? It may overlap more than one. Sometimes, a project in International Relations may sit within foreign policy analysis, international political economy, and the study of international organisations. It could then conceivably be determined to belong to International Studies.

Your choice will determine which literature is most influential, which debates you engage with, which theories and methods you consider, and ultimately how you position your research.

The next step is to identify the academic conversation surrounding your topic. Ask what scholars have already studied, what questions they have asked, and what explanations or arguments they have offered. You do not need to know this literature completely when you begin. Your initial reading is part of the process of discovering where your research belongs.

As you read, think of your research as gradually finding its place on a map. Begin with the broad field, identify the relevant area or subject, and then locate the particular debate or problem that interests you. Record this process in your research diary. Note the fields, subjects, debates, and literature that appear relevant, and update these notes as your understanding develops.

In your research diary, you should work towards answering three questions:

1. What field does my research belong to?

2. What existing research does it connect with?

3. What does my research add to that conversation?

Your answers do not need to be final. Return to them and revise them as you read more. By the time you write your paper, however, your research diary should contain clear answers to all three questions. These will help you explain where your research fits within existing academic knowledge and what contribution your paper seeks to make.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

All research begins with assumptions about the world. We make assumptions about what is real, what can be known, and how knowledge can be produced. These assumptions shape the questions we ask, the evidence we consider important, and the methods we use.

Philosophy provides the foundation for these assumptions. Different philosophical traditions understand reality and knowledge in different ways and therefore encourage different approaches to research. How we see the world influences how we choose to study it.

In research methods, these foundations are usually considered through ontology and epistemology:

• Ontology - the study of what exists and the nature of reality. In research, it concerns our assumptions about what the social world is and whether it exists independently of our perceptions.

• Epistemology - the study of knowledge and how we can know things. In research, it concerns what counts as valid knowledge and how we can acquire knowledge about the world.

So, let’s go through the question “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Ontology asks what is real, regardless of whether we observe it or not. Epistemology asks a slightly different question--it asks how could we know whether the tree made a sound if nobody was there. So epistemology doesn’t take issue with whether the sound exists or not, but rather how we can create knowledge about it. So let’s reword the question for ontology and epistemology.

Ontology would ask if nobody hears the tree fall, does the sound exist? Epistemology would ask if nobody hears the tree fall, how can we know whether it made a sound. Essentially, ontology is about the tree and the sound and epistemology is about our knowledge of the tree and the sound.

Appears simple, right? But it raises a fundamental philosophical problem: does reality exist independently of our experience of it?

When the tree falls, it creates vibrations in the air. We normally call these vibrations “sound.” But sound can also mean the experience produced when those vibrations reach an ear and are interpreted by a brain. If nobody is present, there are vibrations—but is there actually a sound?

This distinction gives reason to the two broad ontological positions in the social sciences:

• A positivist would generally argue that there is a reality independent of the observer: the tree falls and produces measurable physical effects whether anyone observes them or not.

• An interpretivist would be more interested in the relationship between reality and human experience. The concept of “sound” has meaning because people experience, describe, and understand those physical events.

In the same way, it illustrates the broad epistemological approaches in the social sciences:

• A positivist approach would seek knowledge through observation and measurement: we could place a recording device in the forest and measure the vibrations produced by the falling tree.

• An interpretivist approach would ask how people experience and understand “sound,” perhaps finding that different people interpret the same event differently. The basic distinction is therefore between a world that can be objectively measured and a world whose meaning must also be understood through human experience and interpretation.

The basic distinction is therefore between a reality that exists independently and can be objectively studied and a reality whose social meaning must also be understood through human experience and interpretation.

I went to a public school so always thought Raphael was just a ninja turtle but turns out he’s also a painter and did this piece called The School of Athens. So there’s two guys in the center and one is Aristotle who points downward and the other is Plato who points upward.

Aristotle points downward, because he reckons that ultimate reality exists around us, and to discover it, we must examine, classify and explain. Plato points upward because that’s the realm of ideal forms--and he believes ultimate reality can only be discovered beyond the material world and must be approached through reason. Of course, sometime after Plato and Aristotle started talking about such things, these two approaches became known as positivism and interpretivism.

Positivism

Positivism is a philosophical approach based on the idea that reliable knowledge should be grounded in observation, evidence, and systematic reasoning. It assumes that the world exists independently of the researcher and that we can develop knowledge about it by observing patterns, identifying relationships, and testing explanations against evidence.

The philosophical foundations of positivism can be traced back to Aristotle, particularly his emphasis on observation, classification, logic, and the search for causes. Aristotle argued that knowledge of the world could be developed through systematic examination of what exists rather than through abstract reasoning alone. This established an important principle that would later become central to positivist thought: knowledge should be grounded in observable reality.

This emphasis developed through the rise of empirical science, particularly the work of Francis Bacon, who promoted systematic observation and induction as ways of producing reliable knowledge. By the nineteenth century, Auguste Comte developed these ideas into positivism as a distinct philosophy. He argued that society, like the natural world, could be studied scientifically through observation and the identification of regular patterns.

In the social sciences, positivism therefore assumes that a reality exists independently of the researcher and can be systematically investigated. Researchers seek observable evidence, measure phenomena, identify relationships, and test explanations. The ultimate aim is to produce reliable knowledge about how the social world works.

Interpretivism

Interpretivism is a philosophical approach based on the idea that knowledge of the social world requires understanding the meanings people give to their experiences and actions. It assumes that social reality cannot be understood independently of the people who experience and interpret it. Researchers therefore seek to understand how individuals and groups make sense of the world around them.

The philosophical foundations of interpretivism can be traced to traditions that emphasized human experience and understanding. An important early influence was Immanuel Kant, who argued that we do not simply observe the world directly but understand it through the concepts and categories of the human mind. This established an important principle that would later become central to interpretivist thought: our knowledge of reality is shaped by how we perceive and understand it.

This emphasis developed further during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly through the work of Wilhelm Dilthey and Max Weber. Dilthey distinguished the study of human society from the natural sciences, arguing that human behaviour required interpretation and understanding. Weber developed this idea through the concept of Verstehen, or interpretive understanding, emphasizing the need to understand the meanings that individuals attach to their actions.

In the social sciences, interpretivism therefore assumes that social reality is shaped by meanings, beliefs, identities, and experiences. Researchers seek to understand these meanings through interpretation rather than simply measuring observable behaviour. They commonly examine interviews, texts, language, historical records, and social practices. The ultimate aim is to understand how people interpret and construct the social world in which they live.

Positivism and interpretivism and Thucydides

The Melian Dialogue in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War provides a useful way of illustrating the difference between positivism and interpretivism. In the dialogue, Athens demands that the small island of Melos submit to Athenian power. The Melians refuse, appealing to justice, independence, hope, and the possibility of assistance from Sparta. Athens responds that questions of justice have little relevance when power is unequal: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

A positivist approach treats the dialogue as evidence of observable patterns in international politics. Athens is materially stronger than Melos; Melos cannot defend itself; there is no higher authority capable of protecting it. The outcome can therefore be explained through variables such as power, military capability, interests, and the absence of effective external protection.

An interpretivist approach asks instead how Athens and Melos understood the situation. Athens constructs itself as a great power whose survival and reputation require Melian submission. The Melians understand themselves as an independent community for whom surrender has meanings beyond physical survival. Their arguments invoke justice, honour, identity, hope, neutrality, and expectations about Sparta.

Positivist reading Interpretivist reading Athens has greater material power Actors interpret what power means Military capabilities determine possibilities Identity and beliefs shape perceived possibilities Melos is objectively weaker Melos believes Spartan kinship matters External assistance can be assessed materially Alliance obligations have socially constructed meanings Outcome demonstrates consequences of power imbalance Behaviour reflects honour, justice, identity, belief and expectations

The Melian Dialogue provides a bridge from philosophy to theory. The same event can be understood differently depending on the assumptions we make about what matters and how we can know it.

If material power is treated as the central reality of international politics, we are likely to develop theories that explain behaviour through capabilities, interests, and constraints. If identities, beliefs, and meanings are treated as important parts of that reality, we require theories that explain how actors understand and construct their world. IR theory therefore builds upon philosophical assumptions, turning different ways of seeing the world into systematic explanations of international politics.

International relations theory

International Relations (IR) theory provides different ways of understanding and explaining international politics. Theories identify what matters, make assumptions about how the international system works, and provide concepts that help us interpret events. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and other approaches can therefore produce very different explanations of the same event.

IR theory is a large and complex field, and it cannot be covered comprehensively in a research methods course. A full understanding requires a dedicated study of the major theoretical traditions, their development, debates, and differences. These are my preferred resources, if you want to go further.

In this course, the purpose is more limited: to understand how theory connects philosophical assumptions to research, shaping the questions we ask, the explanations we develop, and the evidence we use. So, there is only a need for a cursory introduction to the realist, liberal, critical, constructivist, feminist, postmodernist, and practice approaches--these and their derivations are what you’ll see over and over in academic papers as you prepare your own.

Realism in IR

Realism is one of the oldest and most influential ways of thinking about international politics. Its intellectual roots are commonly traced from Thucydides, through Machiavelli and Hobbes, to twentieth-century thinkers such as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. Despite considerable differences between these thinkers, they share a concern with the realities of power, conflict, security, and political necessity.

Modern realism developed these ideas into theories of international politics centred on states competing for security and influence in an international system without a central authority. Realism therefore provides a way of explaining international politics by focusing on power, national interest, survival, and the constraints facing states. In summary:

• States are the principal actors in international politics.

• The international system is anarchic — there is no authority above states.

• States must therefore rely on self-help to ensure their survival.

• Survival and security are the fundamental interests of states.

• Power, particularly military power, is central to international politics.

• States generally behave rationally and strategically in pursuing their interests.

• Differences in the distribution of power help explain state behaviour and international outcomes.

• Conflict and competition are persistent features of international politics.

• Realism seeks to identify general patterns and explanations, making modern realist research closely associated with positivist approaches.

Liberalism in IR

Liberalism is another major tradition in International Relations, emphasizing the possibilities for cooperation, progress, and peaceful relations between states. Its intellectual roots are commonly traced through John Locke, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant, whose work emphasized individual liberty, commerce, political institutions, and the possibility of progress through reason.

Modern liberalism developed these ideas into theories examining how domestic politics, economic interdependence, democracy, and international institutions influence state behaviour. Liberalism therefore provides a way of explaining international politics by looking beyond the distribution of power to the institutions, interests, economic relationships, and domestic characteristics that shape relations between states. In summary:

• States are important actors, but they are not the only important actors in international politics.

• International politics is anarchic, but cooperation remains possible.

• States pursue a variety of interests, including security, prosperity, and economic development.

• International institutions can facilitate cooperation and reduce uncertainty between states.

• Economic interdependence and trade can influence state behaviour and increase the costs of conflict.

• Domestic institutions and political systems can shape foreign policy.

• Individuals, businesses, international organizations, and other non-state actors can influence international outcomes.

• Conflict is possible, but cooperation and progress are also persistent features of international politics.

• Modern liberal theories generally seek to identify causal relationships and general patterns, meaning that much mainstream liberal research also operates within a broadly positivist tradition.

English School in IR

The English School (weirdly named as half of them were Australian) is a major tradition in International Relations that focuses on how states create and maintain order in international politics. Its intellectual roots are commonly traced through Hugo Grotius and other writers on international law and diplomacy, while its modern development is associated with thinkers such as Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, and Adam Watson. Unlike realism, which emphasizes competition under anarchy, the English School argues that states form a society based on shared rules, institutions, and practices.

Modern English School theory developed these ideas around the concept of international society. Although there is no central authority above states, states recognize common interests, accept certain rules of conduct, and participate in institutions such as diplomacy, international law, the balance of power, war, and great-power management. The English School therefore provides a way of understanding how anarchy and international order can exist at the same time. In summary:

• States are the principal actors in international politics.

• The international system is anarchic — there is no authority above states.

• States nevertheless form an international society when they recognize common interests, rules, and institutions.

• International order is maintained through established institutions and practices.

• Diplomacy and international law provide rules and mechanisms through which states manage their relations.

• The balance of power and great powers can play important roles in maintaining international order.

• War remains part of international society but is also shaped and constrained by rules and practices.

• Sovereignty and non-intervention are important principles governing relations between states.

• International society can develop beyond coexistence towards greater cooperation and concern for individuals, rights, and justice.

• The English School is generally less closely associated with positivism than mainstream realism and liberalism, often drawing on historical, interpretive, and normative approaches to understand the rules, institutions, and practices of international society.

English School theory just seems to make more sense, IMO. It kinda combines a few elements to blunten the sharp edges of the others.

Critical theory in IR

Critical theory provides a different approach to International Relations by questioning the political, economic, and social structures that are often taken for granted. Its intellectual roots are commonly traced through Karl Marx, and later the Frankfurt School, particularly thinkers such as Max Horkheimer and Jürgen Habermas.

In IR, scholars such as Robert Cox developed these ideas by asking how existing theories reflect particular historical circumstances and relations of power. Rather than simply explaining how the international system works, critical theory asks whose interests the existing system serves, how structures of power are created and maintained, and how they might be changed. It therefore places particular emphasis on power, inequality, historical change, and the possibility of emancipation. In summary:

• Political and social structures are historically created rather than natural or inevitable.

• International politics cannot be understood solely through states and material power.

• Economic, social, political, and ideological forms of power shape international relations.

• Ideas and institutions can help create and maintain existing relations of power.

• Researchers should question concepts and institutions that are normally taken for granted.

• Theory itself is not necessarily neutral and may reflect particular interests and historical circumstances.

• Critical approaches often ask whose interests are served by existing arrangements.

• Research should examine possibilities for change and emancipation, rather than simply explain the existing system.

• Critical theory is commonly associated with interpretivist and post-positivist approaches, although critical scholarship encompasses a wide range of philosophical positions.

Constructivism in IR

Constructivism emerged as a major approach to International Relations during the late twentieth century, particularly through the work of scholars such as Nicholas Onuf, Friedrich Kratochwil, and Alexander Wendt. It developed partly in response to realist and liberal approaches that tended to treat states, interests, and the international system as largely given.

Constructivism instead argues that international politics is also shaped by ideas, identities, norms, beliefs, and shared understandings. States act according to how they understand themselves, other actors, and the world around them. International reality is therefore not simply determined by material conditions but is also socially constructed through interaction and interpretation. In summary:

• International politics is shaped by both material and social factors.

• Ideas, identities, norms, and beliefs influence state behaviour.

• State interests are not simply given; they are formed through social and political processes.

• How states perceive other states influences how they respond to them.

• The meaning of power, threats, alliances, and security depends partly on interpretation.

• International norms can shape what states consider appropriate or legitimate behaviour.

• Interaction between states can change their identities and interests over time.

• International structures are produced and reproduced through social interaction.

• Constructivism has strong connections with interpretivism, although some constructivist research also adopts positivist approaches to explanation and evidence.

Feminism in IR

Feminist approaches became increasingly influential in International Relations from the 1980s, particularly through scholars such as Cynthia Enloe, J. Ann Tickner, and Christine Sylvester. Feminist theory challenged traditional IR for treating international politics as largely gender-neutral while concentrating on states, war, diplomacy, and military power—areas historically dominated by men. It argues that gender is an important part of how international politics is organized and understood.

Feminist scholars examine how ideas about masculinity and femininity shape concepts such as power, security, leadership, and conflict, while also drawing attention to experiences and forms of political activity often overlooked by conventional theories. In summary:

• Gender matters in understanding international politics.

• International politics is not necessarily gender-neutral.

• Traditional IR has often privileged the experiences and perspectives of men.

• Ideas about masculinity and femininity can shape political behaviour and institutions.

• Concepts such as power and security can have gendered meanings.

• War and conflict can affect men and women differently.

• Everyday experiences can reveal dimensions of international politics overlooked by state-centred approaches.

• Feminist research asks whose experiences and voices are included or excluded from conventional accounts.

• Feminist IR includes diverse approaches, including liberal, critical, constructivist, and poststructuralist feminism, rather than representing a single philosophical position.

Postmodernism in IR

Postmodernist approaches became influential in International Relations during the 1980s and 1990s, drawing particularly on thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-François Lyotard, and in IR on scholars such as Richard Ashley and David Campbell. Postmodernism questions the assumption that international politics can be understood through a single objective account of reality. Instead, it examines how language, discourse, knowledge, and representations help construct political reality.

Categories commonly used in IR—such as security, sovereignty, threat, identity, and even the state—are therefore treated not simply as objective facts but as concepts whose meanings are produced and contested. Postmodernist research consequently asks how particular descriptions of the world become accepted as true and how those descriptions create or reinforce relations of power. In summary:

• There is no single, neutral way of representing international politics.

• Language and discourse help construct political reality.

• Knowledge and power are closely connected.

• Concepts such as security, sovereignty, identity, and threat should be questioned rather than taken for granted.

• Political actors construct identities through distinctions such as self/other, inside/outside, and normal/dangerous.

• Dominant narratives can make some interpretations appear natural or inevitable while excluding alternatives.

• Researchers examine how particular forms of knowledge become accepted as authoritative or true.

• Research often focuses on texts, speeches, representations, narratives, and discourse.

• Postmodernist IR is strongly associated with post-positivist and interpretivist approaches and is generally sceptical of universal theories and objective claims to knowledge.

IR as a practice

IR as a practice became increasingly influential in International Relations from the 2000s, drawing on thinkers such as Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, and Michel de Certeau, and developed in IR by scholars including Emanuel Adler, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver Neumann. Practice “theory” shifts attention from what international actors say or formally decide to what they actually do in their everyday activities.

International politics is understood as being produced through repeated practices—such as diplomacy, negotiation, military planning, intelligence gathering, and participation in international organizations. Many of these practices depend on practical knowledge, professional routines, and shared understandings that actors may rarely articulate explicitly. Practice theory therefore examines how international politics is created and reproduced through everyday actions, routines, skills, and interactions. In summary:

• International politics is produced through what actors routinely do.

• Researchers examine practices, rather than focusing only on formal decisions, institutions, or ideas.

• Practices include activities such as diplomacy, negotiation, military planning, and intelligence work.

• Actors develop practical knowledge and skills through experience.

• Much political behaviour is routine or taken for granted, rather than the result of conscious calculation.

• Professional communities develop shared rules, habits, expectations, and ways of doing things.

• Repeated practices can create and reproduce institutions and international order.

• Practices can also change, producing wider political and institutional change.

• Practice theory is commonly associated with interpretivist and constructivist approaches, although it includes a range of different philosophical traditions.

IR as a practice is, in my opinion, the best explanation. When it comes down to it, negotiations end because negotiators are tired; wars start because leaders are stupid and proud; and traditions continue because no public servant wants anything to upset the safety of their salary for life and a decent retirement benefit at the end.

The weakness of IR theory

Like all social science theories, IR theories simplify reality in order to make it understandable. They do this through several basic components: assumptions, concepts, relationships, and units of analysis. Understanding the components of theory help you to see parallels between IR theory and other social sciences disciplines.

The components of theory

• Assumptions

  • Background assumptions

  • Tractable assumptions

• Concepts

• Relationships

• Units of analysis

Assumptions provide the starting point for a theory. Background assumptions are broad beliefs about how the world works, such as whether people behave rationally or whether states seek security. Tractable assumptions are deliberate simplifications that make a problem easier to study. For example, a theory might treat the state as a single actor even though governments contain many competing individuals and institutions. Such assumptions make complex problems manageable, but they inevitably leave some aspects of reality aside.

Concepts identify and define the things that a theory considers important. In IR, these might include power, security, sovereignty, identity, institutions, or norms. Concepts allow researchers to turn complex features of international politics into categories that can be discussed, compared, and sometimes measured. Different theories often emphasize different concepts or define the same concept in different ways.

Relationships describe how these concepts are connected. A theory does more than identify power, conflict, trade, or institutions; it proposes relationships between them. Realist theories might examine how changes in the balance of power affect conflict, while liberal theories might examine whether economic interdependence encourages cooperation. These proposed relationships allow theories to move from simply describing the world toward explaining why particular outcomes occur.

Finally, the unit of analysis determines where a theory looks for explanation. International politics can be examined at the level of the individual, the state, or the international system. A researcher might explain a war through the decisions of a particular leader, the domestic characteristics of a state, or the distribution of power across the international system. Other theories might focus on institutions, classes, gender, communities, discourses, or practices. The choice of unit of analysis therefore shapes both what a theory can explain and what it is likely to overlook.

Any theory begins with assumptions about how the world works, identifies concepts that it considers important, proposes relationships between those concepts, and selects the actors or processes that should be studied. These choices allow theories to explain complex events, but they also create limitations.

Every theory therefore highlights some aspects of international politics while overlooking others. Its assumptions may simplify how actors behave; its concepts may be difficult to define or measure; the relationships it proposes may not hold across every case; and its chosen unit of analysis may exclude important explanations operating at other levels. Realism, for example, may focus on states, power, and the relationship between capabilities and behaviour, while paying less attention to individuals, identities, or everyday political practices.

The weakness of theory is therefore also part of its usefulness. A theory cannot reproduce the full complexity of the world—it must simplify it. The important task for researchers is to understand what a theory assumes, what concepts it uses, what relationships it proposes, and what unit of analysis it privileges. This allows us to judge both what a theory can explain and what it may leave unexplained.

If you read this far, you’re pretty impressive. Sometimes I kind of tune out when I’m reading and think of other things while the words are going in, then a few paragraphs later I realize, heck, I was thinking about dinner instead of reading. So kudos to you.

The guided academic paper - philosophy and theory

As you develop your guided academic paper, you should begin thinking about the foundations of your own research. Work through each of the following questions in your research diary and record your answers. These entries will provide a record of the decisions you make as your research develops.

First, in your research diary, record your philosophical approach. What assumptions are you making about the world you are studying, and what kinds of evidence will allow you to answer your question? Consider whether your research is primarily seeking to explain observable patterns (positivist) or understand meanings and interpretations (interpretivist), and briefly explain why.

Second, record how IR theory relates to your research. Consider whether realism, liberalism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, practice theory, or another approach helps guide how you understand the problem. You do not need to force your research into a particular theory. Instead, note any theoretical concepts, assumptions, or explanations that may be useful to your research.

Finally, record the basic components of your research. Identify your main concepts, the relationships you are interested in, the assumptions you are making, and your unit of analysis. For each, briefly note how it relates to your research question and the evidence you might need.

These entries are not expected to be final. Philosophy and theory can initially seem abstract and overly academic, but they have practical consequences for research. As your project develops, return to these entries and revise them. Your research diary should show how your thinking about your question, theory, evidence, and research design develops over time.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

Once we have considered philosophy and theory, the next step is to decide what we actually want to know. This is the role of the research question.

A research question turns a broad interest or research problem into a specific question that can be investigated systematically. It provides direction to the research and helps determine what evidence is needed, which concepts are important, and which methods are appropriate.

Developing a research question

Developing a good research question is often a process rather than a single decision. It can be understood as a series of steps:

1. Identify an area of interest — Begin with a broad subject that interests you, such as nuclear weapons, public opinion, diplomacy, or foreign policy.

2. Identify something interesting or puzzling — Look for a pattern, difference, change, contradiction, or something that existing explanations do not adequately address.

3. Ask an initial question — Turn the puzzle into a simple question: Why does this happen? How has this changed? What explains this difference?

4. Conduct preliminary research — Examine the existing literature to determine what is already known and how other researchers have approached the issue.

5. Narrow the scope — Define the population, cases, period, location, or body of evidence that you will actually study.

6. Identify the key concepts — Decide exactly what you are examining and clarify what the important terms in the question mean.

7. Consider the evidence — Ask whether you can realistically obtain the data needed to answer the question.

8. Refine the question — Rewrite it so that it is specific, researchable, theoretically meaningful, and answerable with the available evidence.

As previously noted, this course provides for guided research focused on (a) the discipline; (b) the individual; or (c) the nation. Here’s how to develop a research question in each of these areas:

The discipline

Assuming your broad interest to be in middle powers and how they are studied in International Relations. As you read the literature, you notice something interesting: research on middle powers appears to have increased, but it is not immediately clear how much it has increased, which countries receive the most attention, or what questions researchers are asking. This observation provides the puzzle that motivates the research.

The next step is to turn this puzzle into an initial question, such as: How has research on middle powers changed over time? Preliminary reading can then establish what is already known about the development of middle-power scholarship and whether similar studies have already been conducted. This reading also helps determine how middle-power research might be identified and classified.

The question can then be narrowed and defined. Rather than examining all middle-power research, the study might focus on peer-reviewed journal articles published over the last twenty years. The key concepts also need to be identified. In this case, the study is interested in three characteristics: the number of articles published, the countries examined, and the research questions addressed by those articles.

The researcher must then consider whether the necessary evidence is available. Academic databases can be used to identify relevant articles, which can then be systematically coded according to year, country focus, and research question. Once the scope, concepts, and evidence have been established, the initial question can be refined into a researchable question: What trends can be identified in middle-power research over the last twenty years in the number of publications, their country focus, and the questions scholars have asked?

The individual

Imagine that you begin with a broad interest in how individuals understand international relations, particularly how Korean university students view China and the United States. As you think about the subject, you notice something interesting: students may have very different attitudes towards the two countries, and these attitudes may also vary considerably between individuals. This provides the puzzle that motivates the research: what explains these differences?

The next step is to turn this puzzle into an initial question, such as: Why do Korean university students have different attitudes towards China and the United States? Preliminary reading can then establish what is already known about South Korean public opinion towards the two countries and identify possible explanations for differences in attitudes. Previous research might suggest factors such as political orientation, perceptions of security threats, knowledge, personal contact, travel experience, or attitudes towards the US–ROK alliance.

The question can then be narrowed and defined. Rather than examining the entire South Korean population, the study might focus on students at a particular university or universities. The key concepts also need to be identified. The researcher must decide what is meant by a positive or negative attitude towards China and the United States and identify the individual characteristics that might explain differences between respondents. These concepts can then be translated into questions that can be included in a survey.

The researcher must then consider whether the necessary evidence is available. A survey could ask students about their attitudes towards China and the United States while also collecting information about characteristics that might explain those attitudes. The responses can then be compared to identify patterns and relationships. Once the population, concepts, and evidence have been established, the initial question can be refined into a researchable question: What factors explain differences in Korean university students’ attitudes towards China and the United States?

The nation

Imagine that you begin with a broad interest in how states communicate with foreign audiences, particularly through foreign ministry websites. While examining the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, you notice something interesting: some Korean-language material is translated into English, while other material is available only in Korean. This provides the puzzle that motivates the research: why is some foreign policy information made available to international audiences while other information is not?

The next step is to turn this puzzle into an initial question, such as: What determines which South Korean foreign policy materials are translated into English? Preliminary research can then examine existing studies of public diplomacy, strategic communication, translation, and foreign ministry websites. This can help identify possible explanations for translation choices and establish what is already known about how governments communicate differently with domestic and international audiences.

The question can then be narrowed and defined. Rather than examining the entire Foreign Ministry website, the study might focus on a particular type of content, such as ministerial speeches, press releases, policy statements, or country information over a defined period. The researcher must also identify the characteristics that will be compared, such as subject, target country, policy area, political sensitivity, or intended audience, and determine whether each item has an English-language equivalent.

The researcher must then consider whether the necessary evidence is available. Korean and English versions of the Foreign Ministry website can be systematically compared, with individual items coded according to their characteristics and whether they have been translated. Patterns in what is translated and what remains available only in Korean can then be identified. The initial question can consequently be refined into a researchable question: What patterns explain which South Korean Foreign Ministry materials are translated into English and which remain available only in Korean?

Developing a hypothesis

Some research questions can be developed into a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a clear statement about what you expect the research to find. For example, you might predict that states facing a common external threat are more likely to maintain their alliance. The research can then examine whether the evidence supports this prediction.

Not all research needs a hypothesis. Hypotheses are most useful when research seeks to test relationships between different factors, particularly in positivist research. Interpretivist research may instead seek to understand meanings, identities, experiences, or processes without predicting the result in advance.

A hypothesis should therefore do more than repeat the research question. The research question asks what you want to find out; the hypothesis states what you expect the answer to be. This expectation should normally come from theory, previous research, or preliminary reading.

The discipline

The research question asks what trends have occurred in middle-power research. A hypothesis could predict both growth and concentration:

Hypothesis: Middle-power research has increased over the last twenty years, but this growth has been concentrated on a small number of countries and a limited range of research questions.

This can subsequently be broken into testable expectations: publications will increase over time; countries such as Australia, Canada, and South Korea will receive disproportionate attention; and particular themes, such as multilateralism and international institutions, will dominate.

The individual

Here the hypothesis should identify a factor expected to explain variation in attitudes. For example, perceptions of threat provide a clear independent variable:

Hypothesis: Korean university students who perceive China as a greater security threat will hold more negative attitudes towards China and more positive attitudes towards the United States.

This creates a straightforward relationship between concepts. Perceived threat is the explanatory variable, while attitudes towards China and the United States are the outcomes to be explained. Both can be measured through survey questions.

The nation

Here the hypothesis should predict which material the Foreign Ministry is more likely to translate. An intended-audience explanation provides a useful starting point:

Hypothesis: South Korean Foreign Ministry materials intended to communicate foreign policy positions to international audiences are more likely to be translated into English than materials primarily concerned with domestic political or administrative matters.

The researcher can then classify material according to its subject and likely audience and compare this with whether an English translation exists.

These three also demonstrate three different forms of hypothesis particularly well: a predicted trend (discipline), a relationship between variables (individual), and a predicted pattern in behaviour (nation).

The guided academic paper - research questions

For your guided academic paper, use your research diary to work through each of the eight steps for developing a research question. Do not simply write down your final question. Record how it develops.

Begin with your broad area of interest and identify something within it that you find interesting or puzzling. Write an initial question, undertake some preliminary reading, and use what you discover to narrow the scope and identify your key concepts. Then consider what evidence you can realistically collect before refining your question into its final form.

Keep each stage in your research diary, including questions that you later reject or change. This provides a record of how your thinking develops and will make it much easier to explain and justify your final research question.

Research proposals set out the research you intend to undertake and provides a clear account of how you expect the project to develop. They’re real important.

First, a research proposal explains what you want to research, why the research is worth doing, and how you intend to conduct it. It demonstrates that you have identified a worthwhile and researchable question, have begun to understand the relevant academic literature, and have a realistic plan for answering that question.

Second, a research proposal occupies an important place in the research process. It comes after you have identified an area of interest, undertaken preliminary reading, and begun developing your research question, but before you conduct the main research. This means it brings these early decisions together and helps identify problems with the question, evidence, concepts, or methods before substantial research begins. It’s essentially a working plan rather than a contract, since the project may change as the research develops.

Third, and most important, it secures a check-point in the eyes of those that support your research. It can be used to secure support to continue research for students, and/or it can be used to secure support from a funding source. Either way, it’s at this point where your research either progresses, or requires rethinking and reworking.

Why research proposals?

• Clarify your research — what you want to know and why it matters.

• Test your idea — determine whether the question is researchable and realistic.

• Plan the research — decide what evidence, theory, and methods you will need.

• Identify problems early — before investing substantial time in the research.

• Communicate your project — show others what you intend to do and why.

• Secure approval — acquire academic approval or research funding.

Most research proposals follow a similar structure. They introduce the research problem and question, explain how the project relates to the existing literature, establish its theoretical or conceptual approach, and describe the research design and methods that will be used. They may also address evidence, ethics, limitations, and the practical requirements of completing the research.

The seven basic questions approach

There are many guidebooks and online resources for preparing a research proposal. The best resource for young academics is Denscombe’s Seven Basic Questions Approach.

Denscombe, Martyn. Research Proposals: A Practical Guide. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2025 (https://www.mheducation.co.uk/research-proposals-a-practical-guide-3rd-edition-9780335253562-emea-group)

Rather than beginning with a fixed proposal template, Denscombe argues that a researcher should first be able to answer seven basic questions about the proposed research:

1. What is it all about? (Topic, research problem and question)

2. What do we already know about the subject? (Literature)

3. What does the research need to find out? (Measurement)

4. How will we get the necessary information? (Method)

5. What will it cost and how long will it take? (Planning)

6. Is the research socially acceptable? (Ethics)

7. What are the benefits? (Potential significance)

These questions address the purpose of the research, its relationship to existing knowledge, the research question, the methods to be used, the resources required, ethical considerations, and the expected outcomes. Together, they require you to think through the main decisions that must be made before a research project can begin.

The value of this approach is its simplicity. If you cannot provide a clear answer to one of the questions, there is probably an aspect of the research that still needs further thought. Working through the seven questions therefore provides a useful bridge between developing a research idea and writing the formal proposal.

I strongly encourage you to go to the university library and borrow a copy of Denscombe’s Research Proposals: A Practical Guide, or, if possible, buy your own copy. It is a short, accessible, and practical guide that you can return to whenever you need to develop a research project or write a proposal. The skills it teaches are not limited to this course: they will be useful throughout your academic life, from undergraduate papers to postgraduate research, theses, publications, and research grant applications.

The guided academic paper - research proposals

For your guided academic paper, work through Denscombe’s seven questions and record your answers in your research diary. Do not treat this simply as an exercise for writing the proposal. Use the questions to think through the purpose of your research, its place in the existing literature, the question you are asking, how you will answer it, and what you expect the research to contribute.

Return to these answers throughout the research process. As you read more, refine your question, encounter problems, or reconsider your methods, update your research diary to reflect how the project is changing. Your answers should gradually become clearer and more convincing.

You should also be ready to present these answers whenever someone asks about your research—whether that is your professor, a classmate, another academic, or someone outside your field. Being able to explain what you are researching, why it matters, what others have already said, and how you intend to answer your question is an important academic skill. Denscombe’s seven questions provide a simple framework for doing this throughout the life of your research project.

Before deciding how to conduct research, you need to be clear about what you want the research to achieve. Research can have different purposes. Some research seeks to explore a subject that is poorly understood, some seeks to describe a phenomenon systematically, and some seeks to explain why something happens. These are commonly described as exploration, description, and explanation.

The distinction is useful because the purpose of the research influences many of the decisions that follow.

• Exploratory research asks what is happening and helps identify important questions, concepts, or patterns.

• Descriptive research establishes what is happening, how much, how often, where, or among whom.

• Explanatory research goes further by asking why something happens and examining the factors or processes that might account for it.

A project can combine these purposes, but researchers should understand which is most important for the question they are asking.

Research purpose therefore sits between the research question and the research design. Once you have begun to identify what you want to know, ask what kind of answer your question requires. Are you trying to discover and understand something unfamiliar, describe a pattern or phenomenon, or explain its causes? This decision will help determine the evidence you need, the methods you use, and the kinds of conclusions you can reasonably draw.

Thinking about research purpose also provides a useful test of the research question itself. If you cannot clearly say whether your project is primarily exploring, describing, or explaining something, the question may still need further refinement. Knowing the purpose gives the project direction and provides a bridge from what you want to know to how you are going to find out.

Exploratory research

Exploratory research is appropriate when we do not yet know enough about a subject to ask precise questions or offer convincing explanations. The researcher begins by investigating the area broadly, looking for features, patterns, problems, and possibilities that deserve closer attention. Exploratory research can help researchers:

• Recognize patterns or issues that warrant further investigation;

• Develop more focused research questions;

• Develop an initial understanding of an unfamiliar subject;

• Assess whether a proposed research project is practical;

• Determine what evidence is available and how it might be studied.

• Discover which aspects of the subject are most significant; and

• Suggest possible explanations or hypotheses.

The main value of exploratory research is therefore discovery. Rather than testing a well-developed explanation, it helps establish what is worth investigating and provides a foundation for more focused research.

Descriptive research

Descriptive research is concerned with establishing an accurate account of a phenomenon, population, event, or situation. Rather than asking why something occurs, it concentrates on identifying what exists, what is happening, and how its important characteristics can be systematically documented. Descriptive research can help researchers:

• Organize observations into meaningful groups or types;

• Trace how an event or process develops over time;

• Produce a systematic account of a subject or situation;

• Identify changes, differences, or previously unrecognized patterns;

• Provide reliable information that later research can seek to explain;

• Establish the circumstances in which something occurs; and

• Map the stages or elements involved in a particular process.

The main value of descriptive research is therefore accuracy and detail. Good description establishes what is actually happening and provides the empirical foundation upon which explanations can later be developed.

Explanatory research

Explanatory research is concerned with understanding why something happens. It moves beyond identifying or describing a phenomenon to investigate the factors, relationships, or processes that produce a particular outcome. Explanatory research can help researchers:

• Identify the factors that contribute to an outcome;

• Examine relationships between different variables or conditions;

• Determine how and why those relationships operate;

• Compare competing explanations for the same phenomenon;

• Trace the processes or mechanisms that connect cause and outcome;

• Test hypotheses or theoretical expectations; and

• Develop or refine explanations of observed patterns.

The main value of explanatory research is therefore understanding causation and relationships. Where descriptive research establishes what is happening, explanatory research asks why it is happening and seeks to provide a convincing account of the processes or conditions responsible.

Exploratory, descriptive and explanatory research

Knowing the primary purpose helps determine what evidence is needed, which methods are appropriate, and what claims the research can reasonably make. The easiest way to work out the purpose is to look at the question: asking “what?” will usually be exploratory; a question asking “how?” will usually be descriptive; while a question asking “why?” will usually be explanatory. Of course, the English language allows a bit of leeway around these generalizations.

In practice though, these three purposes often blend together. A researcher may begin by exploring an unfamiliar subject, then describe the patterns that emerge, and finally attempt to explain why those patterns exist. Description may also be necessary before explanation is possible: before asking why public attitudes have changed, for example, we first need reliable evidence that they have changed and an accurate description of how.

A single project can therefore contain elements of exploration, description, and explanation. The important task is to identify the primary purpose of the research. This should follow from the research question.

The guided academic paper - research purpose

For your guided academic paper, record the purpose of your research in your research diary. Decide whether your project is primarily exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory. It may contain elements of more than one, but identify which purpose is most important. In your diary, write a short explanation addressing the following:

• What is the primary purpose of your research?

• Why is this purpose appropriate for your research question?

• Does your project also involve either of the other two purposes?

• What does your research purpose mean for the type of evidence you will need and the claims you will be able to make?

Do not treat this as a final decision. As your research question develops, return to this entry in your research diary and revise it if necessary. The important thing is to be able to explain clearly what your research is trying to achieve and how that purpose relates to your research question.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

Earlier, we considered the philosophical foundations of research. These included questions of ontology—what we believe exists and what the social world is like—and epistemology—what we believe we can know about that world and how we can know it.

These philosophical positions matter because they influence the kinds of questions researchers ask, the evidence they consider useful, and the methods they use to collect and analyse that evidence.

• A researcher working from a positivist position may assume that social phenomena can be observed, measured, compared, and used to identify regular patterns or relationships. This often leads towards quantitative research, in which concepts are translated into variables and examined using numerical data.

• A researcher working from an interpretivist position may instead be interested in how individuals understand events, construct meanings, or interpret their experiences. This more commonly leads towards qualitative research, using evidence such as interviews, texts, observations, speeches, or documents.

The relationship between philosophy and method is not fixed. Quantitative research is often associated with positivism, while qualitative research is often associated with interpretivism, but these are tendencies rather than rules. The same method can be used within different philosophical approaches. What matters is that the methods chosen are appropriate for the research question and fit the researcher’s broader assumptions about knowledge and evidence.

This becomes especially clear with mixed methods research, which combines quantitative and qualitative methods within the same study. For example, a researcher might use quantitative data to identify a pattern and then use interviews or documents to investigate why that pattern exists. Alternatively, qualitative research might first identify an interesting pattern or explanation, which can then be examined quantitatively across a larger number of cases.

Mixed methods research therefore draws on the different strengths of quantitative and qualitative research. Rather than treating them as competing approaches, it uses them together when different kinds of evidence are needed to answer the research question.

Quantitative research

Quantitative research examines phenomena using numerical data and systematic measurement. It generally involves identifying concepts that can be measured, translating these into variables, and examining patterns or relationships between them. Quantitative research may use surveys, existing datasets, experiments, structured observations, or coded information from documents and other sources.

Quantitative research is often associated with positivist approaches, particularly where the aim is to identify regularities, test hypotheses, compare cases, or examine possible causal relationships. For example, a researcher might examine whether democracies are less likely to fight one another, whether economic dependence affects the likelihood of conflict, or whether public attitudes towards an alliance vary according to age, education, or political orientation. However, quantitative methods are not limited to positivist research and can be used within a range of research designs.

Strengths of quantitative research

• Comparison: Numerical measures make it easier to compare individuals, states, organisations, events, or periods of time in a consistent way.

• Identifying patterns: Large datasets can reveal trends and relationships that may be difficult to observe from individual cases.

• Testing hypotheses: Quantitative methods allow researchers to examine whether the relationships predicted by theory are supported by the available evidence.

• Generalisation: Where cases or respondents are appropriately selected, findings may provide conclusions that extend beyond the particular cases studied.

• Replicability: Clearly defined variables and procedures can make it easier for other researchers to repeat the study and assess its findings.

• Precision: Quantitative research can provide precise estimates of the size, frequency, or strength of a phenomenon or relationship.

Weaknesses of quantitative research

• Measurement problems: Many important concepts in the social sciences—such as power, identity, influence, trust, or diplomatic effectiveness—are difficult to reduce to numerical measures.

• Loss of context: Converting complex phenomena into variables can remove important historical, political, cultural, or social context.

• Data limitations: Researchers are restricted by the quality and availability of data. Existing datasets may measure something differently from what the researcher actually wants to study.

• Correlation and causation: Finding that two variables are related does not necessarily demonstrate that one causes the other.

• Limited attention to meaning: Numerical data may show what is happening without explaining how participants understand it or why it is happening.

• False precision: Numbers can give an impression of certainty even when the concepts, measurements, or assumptions behind them remain uncertain.

The central challenge in quantitative research is ensuring that the numbers provide a meaningful measure of the phenomenon the researcher actually wants to understand.

Qualitative research

Qualitative research examines phenomena through non-numerical forms of evidence, with particular attention to meaning, experience, context, and process. Rather than translating concepts into numerical variables, it generally seeks to understand how people interpret the world, how events develop, and how social and political processes operate. Qualitative research may use interviews, focus groups, observations, documents, speeches, archival materials, media reports, or other forms of textual and visual evidence.

Qualitative research is often associated with interpretivist approaches, particularly where the aim is to understand meanings, identities, beliefs, experiences, or social practices. For example, a researcher might examine how diplomats understand their professional role, how political leaders construct ideas of national identity, or how different actors interpret the meaning of an alliance. However, qualitative methods can also be used to investigate causal processes, develop or test theories, and explain why particular outcomes occur.

Strengths of qualitative research

• Depth: Qualitative research can provide detailed understanding of complex events, experiences, ideas, and processes.

• Context: It allows researchers to examine phenomena within their historical, political, social, or cultural setting.

• Meaning: Qualitative methods are particularly useful for understanding how individuals and groups interpret events and understand the world around them.

• Process: Detailed evidence can help researchers trace how and why events unfold over time.

• Flexibility: Research designs can respond to unexpected findings and pursue new questions that emerge during the research.

• Theory development: Close examination of cases can reveal new concepts, relationships, and explanations that may not have been anticipated at the beginning of the research.

Weaknesses of qualitative research

• Limited generalisation: Findings based on a small number of cases or participants may not apply to a wider population or other situations.

• Researcher interpretation: The collection and interpretation of qualitative evidence can be influenced by the researcher’s assumptions, choices, and perspectives.

• Replicability: Because interpretation and context are important, it can be difficult for another researcher to reproduce exactly the same study and findings.

• Comparison: Detailed and context-specific evidence can make systematic comparison across large numbers of cases difficult.

• Time and resources: Interviews, archival research, transcription, coding, and detailed textual analysis can require considerable time and effort.

• Volume of evidence: Qualitative research can produce large amounts of complex material, requiring researchers to make careful decisions about what evidence is relevant and how it should be interpreted.

The central challenge in qualitative research is ensuring that the interpretation of evidence is systematic, transparent, and well supported. The flexibility and depth of qualitative research are major strengths, but researchers must be able to demonstrate how they moved from the evidence they collected to the conclusions they reached.

Mixed methods research

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches within the same study. The aim is to use different forms of evidence to examine different aspects of a research problem or to provide a more complete understanding than either approach could provide alone. For example, a researcher might use survey data to identify patterns in public attitudes towards an alliance and then conduct interviews to understand why respondents hold those views.

Mixed methods research is often associated with pragmatism, which places greater emphasis on choosing methods that are appropriate for answering the research question than on following a single philosophical tradition. Quantitative and qualitative methods can be used at different stages of a project or alongside one another. For example, qualitative interviews might first identify important themes that are then examined through a larger survey. Alternatively, quantitative analysis might reveal an unexpected pattern that qualitative research is then used to explain.

Strengths of mixed methods research

• Breadth and depth: Quantitative research can identify broad patterns, while qualitative research can provide a deeper understanding of those patterns.

• Different questions: Different methods can address different parts of the same research problem, such as what is happening, how widespread it is, and why it occurs.

• Triangulation: Findings from different forms of evidence can be compared to determine whether they support similar conclusions.

• Explanation: Qualitative evidence can help explain relationships or patterns identified through quantitative analysis.

• Exploration: Qualitative research can identify concepts or relationships that can subsequently be examined quantitatively.

• Complementarity: The strengths of one method can sometimes compensate for the limitations of another.

Weaknesses of mixed methods research

• Complexity: Combining different approaches requires researchers to understand and apply more than one set of research methods.

• Time and resources: Collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative evidence can require considerably more time and effort.

• Integration: Simply including both numbers and qualitative evidence does not necessarily produce good mixed methods research. Researchers must explain how the different forms of evidence relate to one another.

• Different findings: Quantitative and qualitative evidence may produce different or even contradictory conclusions, which the researcher must then explain.

• Research skills: Researchers may be more experienced with one approach than another, resulting in an imbalance in the quality of the different parts of the study.

• Philosophical consistency: Combining approaches can raise questions about whether the assumptions underlying different methods are compatible within the overall research design.

The central challenge in mixed methods research is time--it’s basically twice as much work. It is not enough simply to conduct some quantitative research and some qualitative research. The researcher must demonstrate why both are needed, how they relate to one another, and how combining them provides a better answer to the research question.

The guided academic paper - research method

You should now decide whether your guided academic paper will use a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach. Begin with your research question and consider what kind of evidence you need to answer it. Your choice should also be consistent with your research purpose and philosophical approach.

Record in your research diary a short entry that:

• identifies your proposed methodological approach;

• explains why it is appropriate for your research question;

• connects it to your philosophical approach;

• identifies the types of evidence you expect to use; and

• notes any important strengths or limitations.

Your choice is provisional. You may revise it as your research question develops and you learn more about the available evidence and methods.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

So now you’ve developed a research question and selected an appropriate methodological approach, the next challenge is deciding what exactly will be examined and how it can be observed.

Research questions often contain broad or abstract concepts such as power, democracy, trust, inequality, diplomatic influence, or national identity. Before these concepts can be studied systematically, the researcher must determine what they mean and what evidence would indicate their presence, absence, or variation.

This is the problem of measurement. Measurement is the process of connecting abstract concepts to observable evidence. Although measurement is particularly important in quantitative research, where concepts often need to be converted into variables, the same basic problem occurs in qualitative research.

A researcher studying national identity through speeches, for example, must still decide what they mean by national identity and what they will look for in the evidence.

A research question identifies what we want to understand. Measurement determines how the important concepts within that question can actually be examined. Poor measurement can undermine an otherwise strong research design because the evidence collected may not accurately represent the concept the researcher intended to study.

The measurement process can be divided into three broad stages:

1. Conceptualization - what do we mean?
   The researcher defines the concept being studied and identifies its important characteristics or dimensions. For example, what exactly do we mean by power, democracy, or diplomatic influence?

2. Operationalization - how will we observe it?
   The researcher decides how the concept will be identified or measured using evidence. Diplomatic influence, for example, might be examined through leadership positions in international organisations, participation in negotiations, or the ability to shape particular outcomes.

3. Assessing measurement - does the measure work?
   Finally, the researcher evaluates whether the chosen measure actually captures the concept accurately and consistently. This involves questions of validity, reliability, and the limitations of the chosen indicators.

Good measurement does not mean that complex social phenomena can always be measured perfectly. Rather, the researcher should make clear what is being measured, how it is being measured, and why that measure provides a reasonable representation of the underlying concept.

Sampling

Once researchers have decided what they want to measure and how they will measure it, they must decide where the evidence will come from. In many research projects, it is impossible or unnecessary to examine every person, document, event, country, speech, or other possible source of evidence. Researchers therefore select a smaller number for study. This process is known as sampling.

Sampling involves selecting cases or observations from a larger population. The population is the complete group relevant to the research question, while the sample is the smaller group that will actually be studied. For example, a researcher interested in South Korean attitudes towards the United States might define the population as all South Korean adults but collect survey responses from 1,000 people. Similarly, a researcher examining diplomatic speeches might select 100 speeches from several thousand delivered during a particular period.

Sampling follows directly from measurement. Once researchers know what evidence could represent their concepts, they need to decide which evidence they will actually collect and analyse.

The way a sample is selected affects the conclusions that can be drawn from the research. A poorly chosen sample may provide a distorted picture of the wider population, while a carefully chosen sample can provide useful evidence even when only a relatively small proportion of the population is examined.

Sampling generally involves four decisions:

1. Define the population - what people, cases, documents, events, or observations are relevant to the research question?

2. Identify the sampling frame - what population can the researcher realistically access?

3. Choose a sampling method - how will cases be selected from that population?

4. Determine the sample size - how many cases or observations are required?

The appropriate sampling strategy depends on the research question, methodological approach, available evidence, and practical constraints. There is a difference between quantitative and qualitative sampling.

• Quantitative research often seeks samples that allow researchers to make generalisations about a larger population.

• Qualitative research may instead deliberately select particular cases because they provide detailed information or insight into the phenomenon being studied.

The central questions that examiners or readers will ask in sampling is simple: Why have these cases been selected, is the method appropriate, and what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from studying them?

Convenience sampling

Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling method in which participants are selected because they are easy for the researcher to access. Unlike probability sampling, individuals are not randomly selected and not everyone in the population has an equal chance of being included.

Convenience sampling is particularly useful when researchers have limited time, resources, or access to participants. For example, a researcher studying university students might distribute a survey to students in their own classes or approach students on campus. The convenience sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the population - identify the broader population relevant to the research.

2. Identify accessible participants - determine which members of the population can be easily reached.

3. Determine the sample size - decide how many participants are needed.

4. Recruit participants - invite available and willing individuals to participate.

5. Form the sample - use those who agree to participate as the final sample.

The main strength of convenience sampling is that it is quick, simple, and inexpensive. Its main limitation is selection bias. People who are easiest to reach may differ from the wider population, meaning that the sample may not be representative and the findings may be difficult to generalise.

Purposive sampling

Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling method in which cases are deliberately selected because they are particularly relevant to the research question. Rather than selecting cases randomly, the researcher uses specific criteria to identify people, documents, events, countries, or other cases that can provide useful evidence.

Purposive sampling is especially common in qualitative research, where the aim is often to gain detailed understanding rather than to make statistical generalisations about a larger population. For example, a researcher studying diplomatic negotiations might interview officials who participated directly in those negotiations. A researcher examining changes in foreign policy might select speeches by particular political leaders during important periods. The purposive sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the population - identify the broader group of cases relevant to the research.

2. Establish selection criteria - decide what characteristics make a case relevant to the research question.

3. Identify potential cases - find cases that meet those criteria.

4. Select the sample - choose the cases that are most appropriate and practical to study.

5. Justify the selection - explain clearly why these cases were chosen and how they help answer the research question.

The main strength of purposive sampling is that it allows researchers to focus their resources on the most relevant and informative cases. Its main limitation is that the researcher’s judgement influences which cases are included, creating the possibility of selection bias. Researchers should therefore make their selection criteria clear and justify their choices.

Snowball sampling

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method in which existing participants help the researcher identify or recruit additional participants. The sample therefore develops through referrals, with one participant leading the researcher to others who may be relevant to the research question.

Snowball sampling is particularly useful when the population is difficult to identify, locate, or access. There may be no available list of potential participants, or membership of the relevant group may not be publicly known. It can also be useful where trust is important and an introduction from an existing participant makes access easier. For example, a researcher studying diplomatic negotiations might begin with one former diplomat who then introduces the researcher to other officials involved in the process. The snowball sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the target population - identify the type of participants needed for the research.

2. Identify initial participants - find a small number of suitable participants who can provide a starting point.

3. Request referrals - ask participants to identify or introduce other people who meet the research criteria.

4. Expand the sample - continue recruiting through these referrals as the network develops.

5. Determine when to stop - end recruitment when the required sample has been reached or additional participants are providing little new information.

The main strength of snowball sampling is that it can provide access to populations that would otherwise be difficult to reach. Its main limitation is that participants tend to refer people within their own networks. The resulting sample may therefore overrepresent people with similar backgrounds, experiences, or views. Researchers should clearly explain how the snowball process began and recognise the possible effects of these networks on their findings.

Quota sampling

Quota sampling is a non-probability sampling method in which the researcher divides a population into relevant categories and selects a specified number of participants from each category. The aim is to ensure that important groups are included in the sample, without requiring participants to be selected randomly.

Quota sampling is particularly useful when researchers want their sample to reflect important characteristics of a population but cannot conduct probability sampling. For example, a researcher examining attitudes towards an alliance might establish quotas based on age, gender, region, or political orientation. If 30 percent of the population belongs to a particular age group, the researcher might aim for approximately 30 percent of the sample to come from that group. The quota sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the population - identify the broader population relevant to the research.

2. Choose relevant characteristics - decide which characteristics, such as age, gender, region, or occupation, should be represented.

3. Establish quotas - determine how many participants are required from each category.

4. Recruit participants - select participants until the quota for each category has been reached.

5. Assess the sample - check whether the completed sample meets the established quotas and consider any remaining biases.

The main strength of quota sampling is that it ensures important groups are represented in the sample. It can also be faster and less expensive than probability sampling. Its main limitation is that individuals within each category are not randomly selected. The sample may therefore appear representative while still containing important selection biases.

Simple random sampling

Simple random sampling is a probability sampling method in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Participants are chosen randomly from the entire population rather than being selected according to particular characteristics or groups.

Simple random sampling is particularly useful when researchers have access to a complete list of the population and want to minimise selection bias. For example, a researcher studying the attitudes of students at a university might obtain a list of all enrolled students and randomly select 500 students to participate. The simple random sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the population - identify the broader population relevant to the research.

2. Create a sampling frame - obtain a complete list of the individuals in the population.

3. Determine the sample size - decide how many individuals should be included in the study.

4. Randomly select participants - use a random method, such as a random number generator, to select individuals from the list.

5. Form the sample - use the selected individuals as the final sample for the research.

The main strength of simple random sampling is that every member of the population has an equal chance of selection, which helps reduce selection bias. Its main limitation is that researchers need access to a complete and accurate list of the population. It may also be impractical when the population is very large or geographically dispersed.

Stratified sampling

Stratified sampling is a probability sampling method in which the population is divided into relevant groups, or strata, and participants are randomly selected from each group. Unlike quota sampling, the selection of individuals within each group is random.

Stratified sampling is particularly useful when researchers want to ensure that important groups within a population are adequately represented. For example, a researcher examining attitudes towards an alliance might divide the population according to age, gender, region, or another relevant characteristic and then randomly select participants from each group. This can prevent smaller but important groups from being overlooked in the sample. The stratified sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the population - identify the broader population relevant to the research.

2. Choose the strata - divide the population according to relevant characteristics, such as age, gender, region, or occupation.

3. Determine the sample for each stratum - decide how many participants should be selected from each group.

4. Randomly select participants - use random selection to choose participants within each stratum.

5. Combine the groups - bring the selected participants together to form the final sample.

The main strength of stratified sampling is that it combines random selection with representation of important groups. It can therefore produce a sample that better reflects differences within the population. Its main limitation is that researchers need sufficient information about the population beforehand to identify the strata and randomly select participants within them.

Cluster sampling

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which the population is divided into naturally occurring groups, or clusters, and a number of these groups are randomly selected for study. Rather than randomly selecting individuals from across the entire population, the researcher first selects groups and then studies individuals within those groups.

Cluster sampling is particularly useful when the population is large or geographically dispersed, making it difficult or expensive to sample individuals directly. For example, a researcher studying university students across South Korea might treat universities as clusters, randomly select several universities, and then collect data from students within those universities. The cluster sampling process follows five steps:

1. Define the population - identify the broader population relevant to the research.

2. Identify the clusters - divide or identify the population according to naturally occurring groups, such as schools, universities, cities, or districts.

3. Randomly select clusters - choose a number of clusters using random selection.

4. Select participants - study either all individuals within the selected clusters or randomly select individuals from within them.

5. Combine the results - use the selected clusters to form the final sample and analyse the collected data.

The main strength of cluster sampling is that it can make research involving large or geographically dispersed populations more practical and less expensive. Its main limitation is that individuals within the same cluster may be similar to one another. If the selected clusters differ significantly from the wider population, the resulting sample may be less representative.

The guided academic paper

You should now apply measurement and sampling to your guided academic paper. First, work through the measurement process:

1. Conceptualize - define the main concepts in your research question.

2. Operationalize - decide how each concept will be observed or measured.

3. Assess - consider whether your measures are valid and reliable, and identify any limitations.

Next, define the population relevant to your research and choose an appropriate sampling method. Decide what your sample will include and explain why this approach is suitable for your research question. Record this in your research diary.

Before collecting any data, you must consider both research ethics and researcher safety. Ethical considerations concern the rights and welfare of participants, including informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, and protection from harm. Researchers must ensure that relevant ethical guidelines are followed and that any required ethics approval has been obtained.

You must also consider your own safety when conducting fieldwork. Surveys, interviews, observations, and other forms of field research may require researchers to travel to unfamiliar areas, meet strangers, work alone, or enter locations where they may face physical, social, or political risks. Before beginning fieldwork, researchers should assess the location, time of day, method of travel, people they will be meeting, and any particular risks associated with the research topic or setting. Students should avoid unnecessary risks, inform someone where they will be, and withdraw from any situation in which they feel unsafe.

You should therefore plan data collection carefully before entering the field. This includes developing a structured data collection protocol explaining what will be collected, how it will be collected, where collection will take place, and how the resulting material will be recorded and stored. Good preparation helps ensure that data collection is ethical, safe, systematic, and consistent.

Archive and document research

Archive and document research uses existing materials, including government documents, diplomatic records, newspapers, speeches, websites, social media posts, photographs, and other digital materials. The process generally involves:

1. Develop a data collection protocol - specify what material will be collected, where it will come from, the period covered, selection criteria, and how it will be recorded and stored.

2. Identify sources - locate relevant archives, databases, collections, websites, or social media platforms.

3. Collect systematically - apply the same selection criteria and recording procedures throughout the research.

4. Record and store - keep full source details and organise materials using consistent filenames, folders, and reference-management software.

For websites and social media, remember that material can change or disappear. Relevant material should therefore be properly recorded and preserved where appropriate.

Observations

Observation involves systematically watching and recording behaviour, events, interactions, or environments. The process generally involves:

1. Develop a data collection protocol - specify what will be observed, where and when observation will occur, the researcher’s role, and how observations will be recorded.

2. Select the setting - identify the locations, events, or situations to be observed.

3. Conduct the observation - follow the protocol and record observations systematically.

4. Record and store - prepare detailed field notes and securely organise the collected material.

5. Reflect - consider how the researcher’s presence and interpretation may have influenced the evidence.

Preparing an observation protocol

Structured observation involves the systematic observation and documentation of a social setting. Before beginning, researchers should prepare an observation protocol: a detailed guide that identifies what should be observed and provides a consistent structure for taking field notes. The protocol helps ensure that the researcher records relevant information systematically rather than simply writing down whatever appears interesting at the time.

An observation protocol should begin with a basic record of each observation period, including the date, time, location, setting, participants, and duration. It should then provide space for different types of observations:

• Direct observations - what did you actually see and hear?

• Inferential observations - what do you think the observed behaviour or interaction might mean?

• Analytic observations - how might the observation relate to your research question, concepts, or developing explanation?

• Personal observations - what were your own impressions, reactions, or emotions?

Researchers should keep these categories separate wherever possible. In particular, distinguish what happened from your interpretation of what happened. This makes it easier to return to the original evidence during analysis.

After each observation period, update your notes as soon as possible. Add forgotten details or afterthoughts, record emerging ideas for analysis, and identify questions or issues to examine during future observations. The observation protocol should therefore develop into a systematic record of both what was observed and how your understanding of the research setting developed over time.

Surveys

Surveys collect standardized information from a sample of respondents and are particularly useful for examining attitudes, opinions, behaviours, and experiences. The process generally involves:

1. Develop a data collection protocol - specify the target population, sampling procedure, recruitment method, survey format, and procedures for collecting and storing responses.

2. Design the questionnaire - connect questions to the concepts being measured and use clear, neutral wording.

3. Pilot the survey - test the questionnaire with a small group and make necessary revisions.

4. Administer the survey - recruit the sample and collect responses according to the protocol.

5. Prepare and store the data - check, code, clean, and securely store responses for analysis.

Preparing a survey

A survey requires a survey protocol that explains how respondents will be recruited, how the questionnaire will be administered, and how responses will be recorded and stored. The protocol should also contain the questionnaire itself and establish consistent procedures so that respondents receive the same questions and instructions.

Two principles should guide survey design: do not confuse respondents, and consider every question from the respondent’s perspective. Researchers know much more about their topic than respondents and should not assume that respondents understand academic concepts, technical language, or the researcher’s intentions.

Questions should be simple, clear, and focused on one issue at a time. In particular:

• Avoid jargon, slang, abbreviations, ambiguity, and vague language.

• Avoid emotional language, prestige bias, and leading questions.

• Avoid double-barrelled questions that ask about two things at once.

• Do not ask questions respondents cannot reasonably answer, such as about high-level knowledge, or the distant future or past.

• Avoid questions containing false or unsupported premises.

• Ensure response categories do not overlap and provide a balanced range of possible answers.

Questions should be tested through a pilot survey before the main survey begins. This can reveal confusing wording, missing response options, technical problems, or questions that respondents interpret differently from what the researcher intended.

Different questions require different response formats. Common options include:

• Open-ended - respondents answer in their own words.

• Closed or partially closed-ended - respondents select from provided answers, sometimes with an “other” option.

• Likert scale - measures levels of agreement or disagreement.

• Quality - rates something from poor to excellent.

• Quantitative judgement - asks respondents to estimate an amount or quantity.

• Ranking - places several options in order.

• Checklist - allows respondents to select all applicable options.

• Classification - places respondents into categories.

• Frequency - measures how often something occurs.

• Importance - measures how important something is.

• Likelihood - measures how likely an event or behaviour is.

• Linear rating - asks respondents to place their answer along a numerical scale.

The response format should match what the researcher is trying to measure. Researchers should not automatically use the same type of scale for every question.

Researchers should also record what happens during recruitment. A low response rate can affect the quality and representativeness of the resulting data. Several stages can be monitored:

• Location rate - percentage of the sampling frame successfully located.

• Contact rate - percentage of located respondents successfully contacted.

• Eligibility rate - percentage of contacted respondents who meet the study criteria.

• Cooperation rate - percentage of eligible respondents who agree to participate.

• Completion rate - percentage of participating respondents who complete the questionnaire.

• Total response rate - percentage of the original sampling frame who ultimately complete the survey.

These figures help researchers identify where participants were lost during the survey process and assess whether non-response may have introduced bias into the final sample.

Interviews

Interviews collect detailed information about people’s experiences, knowledge, beliefs, interpretations, and decisions. The process generally involves:

1. Develop a data collection protocol - specify who will be interviewed, how participants will be recruited, where interviews will occur, how consent will be obtained, and how interviews will be recorded and stored.

2. Develop an interview guide - prepare questions connected to the research question while allowing appropriate follow-up questions.

3. Recruit participants - apply the sampling strategy and provide participants with the necessary information about the research.

4. Conduct the interviews - obtain consent and conduct each interview consistently with the agreed protocol.

5. Prepare and store the data - transcribe or organise notes, anonymise where necessary, and securely store the research material.

Preparing structured interviews

A structured interview uses a predetermined set of questions that are asked of each participant in the same order and, as far as possible, in the same way. It provides more consistency than semi-structured or unstructured interviewing and makes responses easier to compare across participants.

Researchers should prepare an interview protocol before beginning. This should contain the interview questions, their order, instructions for the interviewer, procedures for recording responses, and an introduction explaining the research and consent process.

Questions should be directly connected to the research question and the concepts being investigated. As with surveys, questions should be clear and understandable from the participant’s perspective. Researchers should:

• use simple and neutral language;

• avoid jargon, ambiguity, and unnecessarily complex questions;

• ask one question at a time and avoid double-barrelled questions;

• avoid leading or emotionally loaded questions;

• avoid making assumptions about the participant’s knowledge or experience;

• ensure participants can reasonably answer the question; and

• arrange questions in a logical order, beginning with relatively straightforward questions before moving to more difficult or sensitive topics.

The interview should be piloted before formal data collection begins. This can identify questions that are unclear, repetitive, difficult to answer, or interpreted differently than intended.

Consistency is particularly important in structured interviews. The researcher should:

1. Introduce the research - explain the purpose and procedures and confirm consent.

2. Follow the interview protocol - ask each participant the same questions in the established order.

3. Remain neutral - avoid signalling approval, disagreement, or preferred answers.

4. Record responses consistently - use the same procedures for every participant.

5. Close the interview - provide an opportunity for questions and explain what will happen to the information collected.

Researchers should also record basic information about each interview, including the date, location or format, duration, and any circumstances that may have affected the interview.

Interviews may be audio-recorded with permission or documented through detailed notes. Recordings and transcripts should be labelled consistently and stored securely. Any identifying information should be managed according to the research protocol and ethical requirements.

Researchers should also keep brief field notes after each interview. These can record unusual circumstances, problems with particular questions, observations about the interview process, and ideas that may be useful during later analysis. This creates a record not only of participants’ responses but also of how the interview data were collected.

Preparing unstructured interviews

An unstructured interview is a flexible conversation in which the researcher explores a topic without following a fixed set of questions. Rather than asking every participant identical questions in the same order, the researcher allows the conversation to develop according to the participant’s experiences, knowledge, and responses.

Unstructured does not mean unprepared. Researchers should still develop an interview protocol before beginning. This should identify the purpose of the interview, the main topics to explore, procedures for consent and recording, and how interview materials will be stored.

Instead of preparing a detailed questionnaire, researchers develop a list of topics, themes, or broad opening questions. These should be connected to the research question while allowing participants considerable freedom to determine the direction of the conversation. Researchers should:

• identify the main topics that need to be explored;

• prepare broad, open-ended questions;

• avoid leading or emotionally loaded questions;

• use language appropriate to the participant;

• prepare possible prompts for important topics;

• consider how sensitive issues will be approached; and

• pilot the interview approach where possible.

The researcher’s role is to guide rather than control the conversation. The researcher should:

1. Introduce the research - explain the purpose and procedures and confirm consent.

2. Begin broadly - use an open question that allows the participant to describe their experience or perspective.

3. Listen carefully - allow the participant to raise issues that the researcher may not have anticipated.

4. Probe important points - use follow-up questions such as asking for examples, explanations, or clarification.

5. Remain neutral - avoid signalling preferred answers or imposing the researcher’s interpretation.

6. Close the interview - check whether the participant wishes to add anything and explain what will happen to the information collected.

With permission, interviews should normally be recorded and later transcribed or carefully summarized. Researchers should also prepare field notes immediately after the interview, recording important observations, unexpected themes, problems, and ideas for future interviews.

Because each unstructured interview may develop differently, researchers must keep careful records of what was discussed, why particular topics were pursued, and how their interview approach developed over the course of the research. This flexibility is a major strength of unstructured interviewing, but it also requires careful documentation to maintain a systematic research process.

The guided academic paper - collecting data

You should now decide how you will collect the data for your guided academic paper. Your choice should follow from your research question, measurement decisions, and sampling strategy.

First, identify the most appropriate method: archive and document research, observation, surveys, interviews, or a combination of these. Then develop a structured data collection protocol explaining exactly how you will collect and record your evidence. Ensure that all ethical guidelines are followed before beginning data collection. Record:

• the data collection method you will use and why;

• the sources, settings, or participants from which data will be collected;

• your data collection protocol;

• any survey questions, interview questions, or observation framework you will use;

• how the data will be recorded, organised, and stored; and

• any practical or ethical problems you anticipate.

Your protocol should be detailed enough that another researcher could understand how you intend to collect your data and could follow the same basic procedure.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee

Once data has been collected and prepared, you’re well ready for the next stage of analysis. Data analysis involves systematically examining the evidence to identify patterns, relationships, differences, meanings, or explanations that help answer the research question.

The form of analysis depends on the research question, methodological approach, and type of data collected:

• Quantitative analysis examines numerical data using statistical techniques.

• Qualitative analysis examines meanings, themes, processes, and narratives within textual, visual, observational, or other non-numerical evidence.

Quantitative data analysis

Quantitative analysis uses statistical techniques to describe data and examine relationships between variables. Analysis normally begins with individual variables before moving to relationships between two or more variables.

Univariate analysis examines one variable at a time. Its purpose is to describe the characteristics and distribution of that variable before examining relationships with other variables. Common techniques include:

• Frequency and percentage - how often different values or categories occur.

• Mean, median, and mode - measures of the typical or central value.

• Range and standard deviation - measures of how widely values are distributed.

• Tables and graphs - visual representations of the distribution of a variable.

For example, a survey of attitudes towards an alliance might first establish the percentage of respondents who support or oppose the alliance and calculate the average level of support.

Bivariate analysis examines the relationship between two variables. Researchers use it to determine whether differences or changes in one variable are associated with differences or changes in another.

For example, a researcher might examine whether age is associated with support for an alliance, or whether economic dependence is associated with foreign policy behaviour. Common techniques include cross-tabulation, comparison of means, and correlation.

A measure of association indicates the strength and sometimes the direction of the relationship between variables. A stronger association means that knowing the value of one variable provides more information about the likely value of another.

• Examines two variables - looks at whether two variables are related.

• Direction - determines whether the relationship is positive, negative, or absent.

• Strength - considers how closely the two variables are related.

• Common techniques - cross-tabulation, correlation, and simple regression.

• Correlation ≠ causation - a relationship between two variables does not necessarily mean that one causes the other.

The appropriate measure depends on the type of variables being analysed. Common measures include Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Spearman’s rank correlation, chi-square tests.

Researchers must remember that association does not by itself demonstrate causation. A statistical relationship may be caused by another variable, operate in the opposite direction from that expected, or occur by chance. Statistical results therefore need to be interpreted in relation to the research question, theory, and research design.

Qualitative data analysis

Qualitative analysis involves systematically examining evidence to identify meanings, patterns, themes, processes, and interpretations. The researcher normally begins by organising and reading the collected material before coding, categorising, comparing, and interpreting it.

Three common approaches are content analysis, thematic analysis, and narrative analysis.

Content analysis

Content analysis systematically examines the content of documents, speeches, interviews, media, social media, images, or other material. Researchers develop categories or codes and apply them consistently to the evidence. The process generally involves:

1. Define the material to be analysed.

2. Establish the unit of analysis, such as words, sentences, paragraphs, statements, or documents.

3. Develop categories or codes.

4. Code the material systematically.

5. Compare patterns across the evidence.

6. Interpret the findings in relation to the research question.

Content analysis can be quantitative, such as counting how frequently particular terms appear, or qualitative, examining how particular ideas or concepts are represented.

Thematic analysis

Thematic analysis identifies recurring patterns of meaning, or themes, within qualitative data. It is particularly useful for analysing interviews, observations, open-ended survey responses, and documents. The process generally involves:

1. Become familiar with the data.

2. Identify and code relevant passages.

3. Group related codes into possible themes.

4. Review and refine the themes.

5. Define what each theme represents.

6. Interpret how the themes help answer the research question.

Themes should emerge from systematic engagement with the evidence rather than simply reflecting what the researcher expected to find.

Thematic analysis is a qualitative method used to identify and interpret recurring patterns of meaning, or themes, within qualitative data. It is commonly used with interviews, observations, open-ended survey responses, documents, and other forms of textual evidence.

The researcher begins by becoming familiar with the data and identifying passages that are relevant to the research question. These passages are assigned codes, which are short labels describing important ideas or meanings. Related codes are then grouped together to develop broader themes. For example, interviews about attitudes towards a military alliance might produce codes such as security, dependence, cost, trust, and national autonomy. These might then be organised into broader themes such as security benefits, concerns about dependence, and national identity.

The thematic analysis process generally follows six steps:

1. Become familiar with the data - read and review the collected material carefully.

2. Develop initial codes - label passages containing relevant ideas, experiences, or meanings.

3. Identify possible themes - group related codes into broader patterns.

4. Review the themes - check whether the themes accurately reflect the evidence.

5. Define the themes - clearly explain what each theme represents and how it differs from other themes.

6. Interpret the findings - examine how the themes relate to one another and how they help answer the research question.

The main strength of thematic analysis is its flexibility. It allows researchers to identify patterns across large amounts of qualitative material while still paying attention to context and meaning. Its main limitation is that coding and identifying themes involve researcher judgement. Researchers should therefore clearly explain how codes and themes were developed and support their interpretations with evidence from the data.

Narrative analysis

Narrative analysis examines how people or organisations construct and communicate stories about events, experiences, identities, or processes. Rather than breaking evidence entirely into separate themes, narrative analysis pays attention to how different elements are connected into a larger account.

Researchers might examine how political leaders tell the story of a country’s history, how diplomats describe a negotiation, or how individuals explain changes in their political attitudes. The process generally involves:

1. Identify the narratives relevant to the research question.

2. Examine how the narrative is structured.

3. Identify important actors, events, turning points, and themes.

4. Consider how events are connected and given meaning.

5. Examine what is emphasized, excluded, or presented as causing particular outcomes.

6. Interpret the narrative within its wider political, historical, or social context.

The central task in both quantitative and qualitative analysis is to move systematically from raw evidence to findings that answer the research question. Researchers should be able to explain not only what they found, but also how their method of analysis produced those findings.

The guided academic paper - analyzing data

You should now decide how you will analyse the data collected for your guided academic paper. Your choice should follow from your research question, methodological approach, and the type of data you intend to collect.

If you are using quantitative data, identify the univariate and, where appropriate, bivariate techniques you will use. Consider what variables you will describe, which relationships you will examine, and whether measures of association such as Pearson’s correlation, Spearman’s rank correlation, or chi-square are appropriate.

If you are using qualitative data, decide whether you will use content, thematic, or narrative or any other form of analysis. Explain how you will organise and code your evidence and how you will identify the patterns, themes, or narratives needed to answer your research question. In your research diary, record:

• the type of analysis you will use;

• why it is appropriate for your research question and data;

• the specific statistical techniques or qualitative approach you will use;

• the main variables, categories, codes, themes, or narratives you expect to examine; and

• any limitations or problems you anticipate.

Your analysis plan should explain clearly how you will move from the data you collect to findings that answer your research question.

Support an academic - Buy me a Coffee